Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Imports

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now introduce import controls to cut the flow into the country of imported consumer goods and to encourage their replacement by home-produced commodities.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): There is no need, or justification, for imposing restrictions on trade which would damage our international trading relations and possibly our exports.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that bilateral quota agreements are acceptable to G.A.T.T., and that these have been applied successfully by the Japanese Government and, perhaps less successfully by ourselves in certain directions, such as the cotton industry? What steps are the Government taking to negotiate further defensive bilateral agreements of this type?

Mr. Darling: Although, of course, we must reduce the level of imports if we can, the best way to do this is to help our manufacturers to be more competitive and to take appropriate action to deal with unfair competition which may be directed against us. I am sure that what is needed is fewer restrictions on trade everywhere, so that we can increase our own share of world trade in fair competition.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: But would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has made a thoroughly up-to-date study of quotas in their various possible forms since devaluation?

Mr. Darling: We had a long examination of quotas before devaluation; the effects of devaluation in regard to those inquiries are now going on, of course.

Advertising (Imported Consumer Goods)

Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to assist the balance of payments by introducing legislation to prevent the advertising on television and in the Press of imported consumer goods.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir. Such a ban would be arbitrary in effect, undesirable in principle and contrary to our international obligations.

Mr. Roberts: In spite of that devastating reply, would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is farcical that there should be an 8 per cent. annual increase in expenditure on television advertising while the Government are, in theory, supposed to be trying to curb consumer demand? What steps do the Government intend to take to try to cut down this advertising?

Mr. Darling: That is another question, and one which I think is well worth considering.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Are the Government trying to curb consumer demand?

Mr. Darling: I think that we have that intention in mind.

Toy Industry (Development Council)

Gardner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will establish a toy council.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): My right hon. Friend could use his power to establish a Development Council for an industry only if he was satisfied that the industry wants one. We have no evidence that this is so in the case of the toy industry.

Mr. Gardner: Would not my hon. Friend—who has considerable personal experience in these matters—not agree that toys are very important in a child's formative years? In view of the concern of people in education and other spheres who want this toy council, will she look at this again?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are, of course, aware of the great importance of the kind of toys with which a child plays initially, but unfortunately, under the relevant powers, the sort of organisation which the Consumer Council has in mind would not be possible.

Textile Imports (Portugal)

Mr. Gardner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with other members of the European Free Trade Association regarding the control of textile imports from Portugal.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): None, Sir.

Mr. Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very considerable concern in the hosiery and knitwear industries in the East Midlands about the increasing rate of Portuguese imports, particularly in view of the very low wages paid in the Portuguese industry? Will he not discuss the matter either with our friends in E.F.T.A. or directly with the Portuguese Government?

Mr. Mallalieu: The only machinery for discussing the matter with our friends in E.F.T.A. is under Article 20. The criteria laid down there are extremely stringent, and no one has yet thought it worthwhile to raise them. In the case of the hosiery and knitwear industry, the percentage of imports is small compared with total production.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But does not the textile industry have legitimate ground for complaint, in that the Government promised legislation to implement the anti-dumping procedures agreed in the Kennedy Round? When will we see this?

Mr. Mallalieu: I understand that that Bill will be before the House shortly.

Mr. Mapp: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that important trading inter-

ests all across the E.F.T.A. countries feel strongly that there are inbuilt subsidies in these imports into this and other countries, due probably to the supply of raw materials from Africa and a hidden subsidy in Portugal? Is it not about time we looked at this with a very fine tooth comb?

Mr. Mallalieu: I know that that belief is fairly widely shared with or without my hon. Friend's mixed metaphor—but, although we have made all the investigations which we possibly can, we can find no proof.

Aluminium Smelters

Mr. Marten: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Norwegian representations concerning the development of an aluminium smelter industry in Great Britain; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the representations which have been made by other members of the European Free Trade Association concerning plans for the construction of aluminium smelters in development areas; and what reply he will make.

Mr. Darling: When they met on 24th January, the Norwegian Minister of Commerce and Shipping told my right hon. Friend that he regarded the Government aid involved in the development of such an industry as contrary to the E.F.T.A. Convention. My right hon. Friend explained why Her Majesty's Government took the contrary view. The Norwegian Minister has since announced that his Government will raise this question in the E.F.T.A. Council.

Mr. Marten: As well as being contrary to the E.F.T.A. Convention, is not the proposed development also contrary to the spirit of E.F.T.A.? Would it not be cheaper for this country to import the aluminium from Norway, and will a decision not be taken until the E.F.T.A. Council has met and discussed the matter in May?

Mr. Darling: As to the first point, it certainly would not be to the advantage of this country not to proceed with the proposals for the smelters. The benefits which will accrue to us are very great


indeed. On the second point, I do not think that the proposals that have so far been made are contrary even to the spirit of the E.F.T.A. Convention. Thirdly, it is now a question of timing, but I think it very unlikely that any decision will be taken before the E F.T.A. Council has met.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Coal Board is already supplying to the electricity boards coal at prices which are now being offered to the proposed aluminium smelter development, and that, in that sense, there cannot be any element of subsidy at all?

Mr. Darling: The objections of the Norwegians are not aimed so much at electricity costs as at the investment grants that would be involved in building the smelters in development areas, but w reject the argument that the investment grants will be contrary to the E F.T.A. Convention.

Investment Grants

Mr. Costain: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons are employed by his Department in work on the investment grants scheme; what total remuneration is payable to them; what is the cost of accommodation required to administer the grants scheme; and whether he will estimate the cost to industry and the accounting profession of the presentation of grant claims and of dealing with correspondence with the Board of Trade.

Mr. Darling: Eleven hundred staff are employed at a cost of about £1¼ million, which is about 1½ per cent. of the payments to industry. The investment grants offices cost just under £¼ million. The cost to industry and the accounting profession of handling claims is impossible to estimate, but I would not expect it to add greatly to the cost of other essential work on financial control, auditing and taxation.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister really mean what he has just said? Does he not realise that industry is finding the scheme a very heavy burden, and that the accountancy profession objects to it? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer to put this nonsense right in the next Budget?

Mr. Darling: We have no evidence at all that this, in itself, is placing a burden on the accountancy profession. In fact, had we not made any changes at al from the investment allowance to the investment grant system there would still have been a burden on the accountancy profession because of the growth of industry, trade, and so on. We have no evidence at all that the accountancy profession has made the kind of observation that the hon. Member alleges. In fact, we have constant consultation with the accountancy professional bodies, and they are satisfied that the investment grant scheme is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect certain criticisms of the scheme that I, for one, in the profession put to him during the passage of the Bill? Will he not now, as a result of his experience, accept that it was a serious mistake ever to get rid of investment allowances?

Mr. Darling: I do not want to go over the arguments about investment allowances, except to say that I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I also recollect certain things that I said in Committee. For instance, I estimated that we would employ about 1,100 people —we are doing so. I estimated that the cost would be £2 million—it is £1½ million. And I can tell him that, out of experience, we are now proposing to reduce the staff and save another £40,000 because the system is working so satisfactorily.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect what I said in Standing Committee—[Interruption]—when I warned the Government that a scheme which would involve the handing out of large sums of money would require the most meticulous administration to prevent fraud? Does he realise that this means getting in touch with accountants who have signed certificates in order to verify that they have, in fact, signed them?

Mr. Darling: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is incorrect. We intended from the beginning—and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw), who is in


the profession, will agree here—to check the figures with the accountants. As for fraud, I am quite sure that the system we are working, which is very efficient, will prevent any fraud at all.

Chipboard Industry

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he now proposes to take to assist the chipboard industry to replace materials at present imported.

Mr. Darling: Devaluation should assist the chipboard industry and, from discussions my Department have had, I know that the industry is well aware of the opportunities now presented. All the forms of assistance offered by the Government to industrialists are, of course, available to the chipboard industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would not the best action be to control the dumping of chipboard from Eastern European countries? Will the right hon. Gentleman particularly bear in mind that, in the present crisis in the Scottish timber industry in disposing of storm-blown timber, such a step would be an enormous help to the industry?

Mr. Darling: We could well look at the suggestion in the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. As to the first part, we have no evidence that chipboard that is coming from Eastern European countries is, in fact, being dumped, in the technical sense, and we have asked the industry whether it can supply us with information that would prove that chipboard is being dumped.

Alarm Clocks

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade, what representation he has had regarding the dumping of alarum clocks in the United Kingdom; and what reply he has sent.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The British Clock and Watch Manufacturers' Association has complained that alarm clocks from Eastern area countries are being sold at unduly low prices with damaging effects on the British industry. The complaint was made to the Ministry of Technology and is under investigation by that Department and the Board of Trade.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is alleged that these clocks are coming into this country at a third of the cost of production? Will she bear in mind that the majority home production of the clocks is in Scotland and that unless action is taken there may be serious repercussions in Scotland?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member will be aware that we are seeking extra powers to amend the anti-dumping Act in order to investigate this kind of thing.

Mr. Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and I made repeated representations to the Board of Trade and previous Ministers there about this matter a considerable time ago we were promised that something would be done and that a full investigation would be made? May we have some information about that now?

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that in 1963 there was an application for action against dumped alarm clocks and the Board of Trade then found that there was not sufficient evidence of material injury or threat of injury to the industry established in that instance.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that these alarm clocks are made exclusively in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)? We were given assurances that the Board of Trade itself would investigate thoroughly these complaints and would not leave it entirely to the trade. Are we to take it that nothing happened in this connection?

Mrs. Dunwoody: There has been an investigation into the effects of alleged dumping. We shall certainly bear very much in mind the views of my hon. Friend.

Leased Computers (Investment Grants)

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that investment grants paid to firms leasing computers have reduced the charges they make for their use; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: The availability of investment grants is only one factor in determining charges for leased computers, but I have no reason to suppose that in this competitive field the benefit of investment grant is not being passed on to lessees.

Mr. Higgins: Since the object of the grant is to encourage the use of computers, is it not essential that the benefit should be passed on to the user? Will the right. hon. Gentleman look at this further to see that this is set out in the actual leasing agreements?

Mr. Darling: The best thing is to look at this if the hon. Member has evidence to show that the benefit is not being passed on. We will look at specific cases, but, so far as our inquiries go in this matter, we understand that the advantages in investment grants go to the lessee.

Service Industries

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government will now reconsider their policy of discriminating against service industries and in favour of manufacturing.

Mr. Darling: If the hon. and learned Member is referring to investment grants and the Selective Employment Tax, no change in the Government's general policy in this respect is contemplated.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Now that the aim of the Selective Employment Tax to encourage manufacturing as opposed to service industries has proved to be a complete failure, when are we to get rid of this disastrous tax?

Mr. Darling: I certainly would not agree with the hon. Member's views. Employment in the service trades is bound to go on increasing as living standards rise and people want more and more services of one kind and another. What we have tried to do, and have succeeded to some extent in doing, is to check the excessive expansion of service industries which has gone on for many years at the expense of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the Report of the Bland Committee on Overseas Earnings, on invisibles, a standing condemnation of the Government's policy in

this regard? Why do the Government continue to regard as an export only something you can drop on your toes?

Mr. Darling: There is a Question on this subject later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hirst: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that since S.E.T. has been in operation, although its main purpose was to switch people from service industry to manufacturing industry, there are now 300,000 fewer employed in the manufacturing industries and the effect has been the exact opposite? This is what hour after hour, day after day, in Committee, we said would happen.

Mr. Darling: Whatever the figures the hon. Member has, I am certain that they do not support the argument he is trying to put forward.

Sir S. McAdden: Recognising that responsibility for taxation rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is it not surely the job of the right hon. Gentleman to make representations in the interests of trade and industry to the Chancellor? Is it not abundantly clear that this iniquitous tax, instead of sending people from service to manufacturing industries, is working the other way and that the numbers are declining in manufacturing industry and increasing in the service industries and the Civil Service?

Mr. Darling: The intention was not to drive anyone out of anywhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "You said so."]—no, but to check the great increase year by year of those going into the service industries. What I think the hon. Member does not realise is that over a period of years of every 100 new jobs created in this country over 80 were in service industries and it is the manufacturing industries which are short of manufacturing workers.

Mr. Baxter: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further consideration to this tax because of the seeming misunderstanding about its purpose? I understood that its purpose was to help the export industry by giving it a hidden subsidy and all this nonsense about getting people out of service industries into manufacturing industry is totally wrong. Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to repeal


of the tax because I do not think it serves the purpose for which it was introduced?

Mr. Darling: I am quite sure that no one has ever suggested that the purpose of the tax was to give a hidden subsidy to anybody. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I shall see that the views he has expressed are conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter again.

Scottish Coalfield Areas (New Industry)

Mr. Monro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he is making in attracting industry to areas of pit closure in Scotland.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since the beginning of 1965, 63 firms have decided to set up factories in the Scottish coalfield areas and at present employ some 1,140 men. About 12,600 more new jobs for men are expected to be created when these factories are fully manned, and from expansions now planned by firms already in these areas. Additional new jobs will be created in 19 advance factories yet to be allocated in these areas and my right hon. Friend will continue to use his powers to encourage further developments.

Mr. Monro: is the hon. Lady aware that as the latest round of pit closures rapidly approaches there seems to be little sign of industry coming to the new advance factories? Will she make this her top priority?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Certainly we are very anxious about the whole problem of the creation of employment, but the hon. Member will be aware that we are wing the special development areas particularly to deal with some of these problems.

Mr. William Hamilton: What progress is being made in investigation into the possibility of selling the coal now in stock at reduced prices as an additional inducement to industry to come to these areas?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that that question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, but we are obviously interested in helping in any way we can.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Regional Employment Premium and the Selective Employment Tax, utilised properly, can be of great advantage in these areas? Can she see that this kind of thing continues?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the hon. Lady agree that about a score of advance factories are already standing idle in Scotland? What is the point of adding to advance factories so long as Government policies make it impossible to fill those which are already there?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are determined that when the upturn in the economy comes—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—we shall have advance factories available in order to be able to provide accommodation for industry.

Commodity Markets

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the damage caused to British commodity markets by devaluation; what steps he proposes to take to minimise the damage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: I fully appreciate the foreign exchange earnings of the commodity markets, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the Government cannot accept liability to compensate traders who will sustain losses because they bought forward in local sterling area currencies for onward sale in sterling. I understand, however, that the Bank of England's offer of loans of up to £5 million at a favourable rate of interest still stands.

Mr. Higgins: What estimate has the Minister made of the total loss incurred by the market? In view of the importance the market has for invisible earnings, may I ask whether he will tell the House to what extent the offer made by the Bank of England is likely to cover this loss?

Mr. Darling: Offhand I cannot give the figures the hon. Member wants, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has discussed these problems fully with the trading interests concerned and I am


quite sure that calculations have been made at the Treasury about the costs that have been incurred and the needs of the trading interests.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in 1966 over half of all visitors to Great Britain stayed in London and nowhere else; and what action he will take to encourage such visitors to spend more time outside London.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The British Travel Association promotes the attractions of all parts of the United Kingdom in its overseas advertising.

Mr. Heseltine: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that outside London the rates of return in this industry are very low and that, given help, this industry is able to make a valuable contribution to regional development?

Mr. Mallalieu: The industry is certainly able to make a valuable contribution not only to regional development, but to our balance of payments. It is a most important industry. We are considering what help we can give.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend consult my right hon. Friend the "Minister for the Arts" with a view to ensuring that a greater proportion of grants goes to provincial cities so as to make them more attractive, not only to foreign visitors, but also to the people who live and work in them?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am all for that. I will have a word with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the rate of growth of earnings from overseas visitors to Great Britain in the years since 1959; and how this compares with the rate of growth of other West European countries, available to him from international sources.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: About 6 per cent. per annum between 1959 and 1966,

which is less than for most other West European countries, though United Kingdom earnings were the fifth highest in absolute terms. As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he estimate the adverse effect on the British holiday trade of the travel tax recently announced by the United States Government? Is not regrettable that, by the introduction of their £50 travel allowance limit, Her Majesty's Government have set the example for this sort of restrictive activity and are we not likely to be hurt by it more than we are helped?

Mr. Mallalieu: The restriction on the travel allowance was not something which one would do if one could avoid it. It was forced on us as one of the measures to correct the balance of payments.
As to the United States restrictions, we still do not know what they will be and when, if ever, they will be applied, so that it is not easy to make a forecast of their effect on tourism from that country.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman understand that the health of the tourist industry is closely bound up with the health of the aviation industry? We cannot expect tourists to fly here if there is no hotel for them to stay in.

Mr. Mallalieu: I have that point very much in mind.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Common Market countries in particular the cost of living is very high, so that there is great scope for the tourist trade in this country if his Department would advertise energetically throughout the Common Market countries for their citizens to come here for holidays?

Mr. Mallalieu: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The British Travel Association has during the past year conducted a special campaign to advertise abroad the advantages of holidaying in this country.

Following is the information:


Average rate of growth in earnings from overseas visitors (travel credits) between 1959 and 1966



Per cent. per annum


United Kingdom
…
6


Austria
…
17


Belgium and Luxembourg
…
15


Denmark
…
13


France
…
12


Germany (Federal Republic)
…
8


Greece
…
19


Ireland
…
8


Italy
…
16


Netherlands
…
16


Norway
…
11


Portugal
…
40


Spain
…
34


Sweden
…
0.5


Switzerland
…
11

Source: The yearly reports on "Tourism in O.E.C.D. member countries". Since different methods are used by different countries to estimate travel credits, the percentage changes are not always on a comparable basis.

Hotel Industry

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now announce the result of his re-examination of the hotel loans scheme.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now state the result of his consideration of the recommendations for encouraging investment in the hotel industry submitted by the Economic Development Committee for Hotels and Catering.

Mr. Miscampbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now take steps to provide investment grants for the hotel and catering industries.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Government are examining the case for further assistance for the hotel industry and will announce their conclusions as soon as practicable.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman feel able to give us a more specific assurance as to when the announcement will take place? Does he intend to implement the suggestions of the little N.E.D.C., first, that it should not be obligatory for the hotel industry to satisfy overseas requirements before it can obtain grants, and, secondly, that there should be moratorium for the first three years before the repayment of grants?

Mr. Mallalieu: These considerations have been very much in our minds, but I will not anticipate the statement. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will be able to make an announcement before the end of March.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister of State aware that the little N.E.D.C. Report itself refers to the need for very rapid action so that the foreign exchange potential of the industry can be realised? Will he bear in mind, when the announcement is made, the vital point made in the Report that the rate of return on investment at present is too low?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, I have that very much in mind, and also the need for urgency.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of many travellers, particularly travellers in Europe, British hotel charges are the highest in Europe at present? In considering the injection of further Government money into the hotel industry, which I do not resist, will my hon. Friend ensure that steps are taken to protect the consumer so that he enjoys some of the benefit of the Government money which it is proposed to put into the industry?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not accept that British hotel charges are the highest in Europe.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Does the Minister of State realise that in Wales the tourist industry, which is a valuable part of industry in Wales, would do much better if there were a return to the system of investment allowances and an abolition of the Selecive Employment Tax?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is another question.

Company Law

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for further legislation in the field of company law; and when they will be laid before the House for consideration.

Mr. Darling: We hope, later in this Parliament, to propose legislation to deal with the Jenkins Committee's recommendations which were not dealt with in


last year's Companies Act, and will consider other proposals.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As Jenkins is now five years old and there has been no general implementation of the Report, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in this Parliament we shall have a new Companies Act? Can we have some action?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We propose and hope to introduce the legislation in this Parliament. As for the Jenkins Committee's Report being somewhat out of date, as it is in some respects, we are constantly in consultation with the appropriate bodies to see what additional recommendations would have been made if we had a Jenkins Committee at the present time, as it were.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend express support for the proposal to abolish the principle of limited liability so that, when the new companies law is introduced, the shareholder will have to do something for his money?

Mr. Darling: That is a proposal which we have not considered, and I doubt very much whether we shall consider it.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the Advisory Committee which has just been reconstituted being used merely to advise on the provisions of the present legislation or to give advice on proposed new legislation?

Mr. Darling: It deals with the operation of the existing legislation and is not advisory on future legislation.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when considering new legislation the desirability of taking account of developments in European company law with a view to aligning, so far as possible, British and continental law?

Mr. Darling: We certainly have this very much in mind. Not for the legislation which I have already been talking about, but obviously for any subsequent legislation, the possibility of harmonising certain company law, not only in Europe. but on a much wider basis, will have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that one of the principal subjects still to be covered which

was in the Jenkins Report, namely, the establishment of a code for takeover bids, is already being dealt with effectively by the City of London? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there may be advantages in leaving this as a voluntary system of control rather than introducing rigid statutory provisions in an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are in consultation with the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange about the voluntary system. One of the questions which is bound to arise is whether the operators of the voluntary system would like some kind of sanction behind what they wish to do. This is one of the issues that we are now discussing and considering.

Mr. John Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend recall certain discussions which took place on the last Companies Act? Can he confirm that the next one will contain provisions for industrial democracy and for workers to share in the profits and capital appreciation of companies?

Mr. Darling: I cannot give any guarantee that it will be in the next legislation, but, as I said in my previous reply, we are considering other proposals.

Overseas Marketing Corporation Limited

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that the Overseas Marketing Corporation Limited will have no privileges relating to official information, credit insurance or finance, which are not equally available to other export houses.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend announced in the House on 2nd November, 1967, the extent of the Government's financial assistance to Overseas Marketing Corporation Limited. Apart from this, the Corporation will be eligible to receive the full range of the Government's services on the same basis as every other exporter, but will receive no special privileges.—[Vol. 753, c. 11–13.]

Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Lady aware that that reply will come as a reassurance to the very important sector of the


British export houses which already do over £1,000 million of export business, earning in the course of it over £40 million in invisible earnings?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware of the efforts made by many export houses, but the purpose of the Corporation was that it should fill any gaps that might exist.

Guarantees (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr. Silvester: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the working party considering exclusion clauses in guarantees; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: It is hoped that an interim report will be submitted later this year.

Mr. Silvester: As this matter has now been under discussion at least since the Molony Report of 1962, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will bring forward the necessary legislation very soon indeed without waiting for an interim report?

Mr. Darling: It is true that the Molony Committee made recommendations, but nothing had been done about the matter until we took over and appointed the Law Commissions and the working party. I have good reason to believe that the working party will have done a pretty good job on this. The time at which we introduce legislation to carry out any recommendations is a matter for further consideration.

Devaluation (Export Opportunities)

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to encourage exporters to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by devaluation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Ministers and officials take every opportunity to bring home to exporters the potential advantages resulting from devaluation through public speeches and meetings, public and private, with organisations representative of industry and commerce. trade associations and individual firms. The B.N.E.C. and its area committees

have also been active and my right hon. Friend is particularly grateful to them for the series of Action '68 Conferences which they organised last month in various parts of the country. Hon. Members may have noticed that recent advertisements for Board of Trade services to exporters have emphasised the opportunities for greater volume and higher profits as a result of devaluation.

Mr. Lane: I appreciate what successive Governments have done in this respect. Will the hon. Lady never rest content but particularly try to simplify the paper work involved at all stages of exporting, including Customs procedures?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We in the Department are well aware of the difficulties that can arise and are doing everything we can to assist.

Mr. Biffen: Does the hon. Lady recognise that business men, whether they are selling abroad or at home, are engaged in the most legitimate practice when they try to maximise the profitable return on the assets with which they are entrusted? Will she therefore give an undertaking that the Government will regard profits in a favourable light?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Government are very anxious that business men shall profit from their sales abroad.

Mrs. Renée Short: What has the Department done to exhort commercial attaches abroad to help increase our exports as a result of devaluation?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that commercial attaches abroad are very helpful to any exporter and they do everything they can to assist.

Mr. Frederic Harris: To what extent have English manufacturers not been able to pass on the full benefit of devaluation in their prices because of previous tight margins and the increasing costs with which they are having to contend?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Obviously, there has been a difference between industries in the extent to which devaluation has been of assistance, but I still feel that there is a margin which will be of great assistance to them in overseas markets.

Selective Employment Tax (Hotel and Catering Industries)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the catering industry and the hotel industry, respectively.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: It has been estimated that, for the hotel industry, Selective Employment Tax represents about 2½per cent. of turnover; for the other catering industries, the figure is about 1 per cent. It is too early to assess the effects on these industries.

Mr. Campbell: Why have not the Government made a further investigation into its effects, as it is clear that the Selective Employment Tax has failed to do what the Government expected in moving jobs from service to manufacturing industries? Is it not time that they altogether reconsidered this ill-advised tax?

Mr. Mallalieu: An investigation has just been completed by Cooper Brothers, and it will be published on 14th February.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Selective Employment Tax has had a real and harmful effect on the tourist industry in the South-West, and will he urge his right hon. Friends to do away with it as quickly as possible in the interests of the tourist industry?

Mr. Mallalieu: We are prepared to do anything in the interests of the tourist industry, but I am not satisfied that the Selective Employment Tax has had an adverse effect.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, as part of the examination of this whole problem to which he has referred, he will look at the special problems of the catering and hotel industries in development areas with high and persistent rates of unemployment?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir, most certainly.

Advance Factories

Mr. Clegg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been completed since

October, 1964; and how many advance factories were unoccupied on 30th November, 1967.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Eighty-eight Board of Trade advance factories have been completed since October, 1964; 36, of which 22 had been completed since July, 1967, were unoccupied on 30th November, 1967, but three of these had been allocated.

Mr. Clegg: What reason does the hon. Lady give for the delay in letting so many of these advance factories?

Mrs. Dunwoody: All advance factories are shown to as many industrialists as are anxious to see new factory accommodation, but it has been difficult for us to obtain tenants in all of them.

Mr. Clegg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been let since October, 1964; and how many people are now working in them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since October, 1964, 55 advance factories have been let, and a further six sold or expected to be sold. About 4,000 people are employed in these factories.

Government and Industry

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve relations between Her Majesty's Government and industry.

Mr. Darling: Her Majesty's Government wish to maintain the closest possible relations both with industry generally and with particular firms and industries and will continue to consult them to the maximum practicable extent on all relevant issues of Government policy.

Mr. Lane: As well as that, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something positive to encourage industry, even if it is only a token this year, in his forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Darling: That question ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend, but I shall pass it on.

Mr. Molloy: In view of the grave anxiety now felt in the engineering industry in Greater London, ought not my right hon. Friend to call a conference


between the trade unions and the employers involved to see whether a planned procedure could be organised in an effort to allay some of the distress which is already being felt in many trade union organisations as well as employers' organisations in engineering in Greater London?

Mr. Darling: That is a different question, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the greatest possible consultation is needed between firms which are in process of rationalising their factories and the trade unions, and as much advance information as possible of the changes proposed should be given to the appropriate Government Departments so that a proper phased operation could apply in practically every case.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it not a fact that, contrary to the high hopes which many industrialists—mistakenly, as it turned out—placed in Her Majesty's present Government, the disillusion which so many industrialists are now feeling is, perhaps, the greatest condemnation of the Government's performance?

Mr. Darling: I do not agree with a single word which the hon. Gentle has said. I can tell him that a great many industrialists, from big, medium and small firms and trade associations, have told me that they have had closer and more regular contacts with the Board of Trade during the past three years than they ever had in any similar period under the previous Administration.

Company Names (Registration)

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, following the registration of Compton Pipe Organs Limited in 1964, he permitted the registration of the name of Compton Organs Limited in June, 1967.

Mr. Darling: Because the Board of Trade did not consider the name undesirable.

Mr. Tilney: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, because of a mistake in his Department, it was possible for an advertisement to appear in the Musical Times of December last advertising Rushworth & Dreaper Ltd. "incorporating Compton Pipe Organs Ltd.", while on the opposite page there was an

advertisement for Compton Organs Ltd? Will he take powers to rectify such mistakes when they are made?

Mi. Darling: I agree that the advertisements appear to prove the hon. Gentleman's point, but, given the facts of the case, the two companies having decided which should make which type of organ, I should have come to the same decision as the Registrar did. However, we cannot resolve this problem at Question Time, so I repeat the invitation which I sent to the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter with me to see whether we can do something about it.

International Tourist Year

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to mark the observance of 1967 as International Tourist Year.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Government supported International Tourist Year through the British Travel Association, which took special measures to mark the occasion.

Mr. Campbell: As the Government supported the concept of the International Tourist Year, will they now make a major contribution by relieving international tourism on three points—first, the £50 travel allowance; second, restoring investment allowances or grants; and, third, abolishing the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Mallalieu: All three matters have already been dealt with in other Questions.

British Week Trade Fairs

Mr. Alison: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much public money was spent each year, respectively, since 1961 on promoting British Week trade fairs overseas; and what is the result of his studies as to the cost effectiveness of the outlay.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I refer the hon. Member to the figures which my right hon. Friend gave in answer to his question on 22nd November, 1967. We have not yet received all the information about the results of last autumn's Weeks in Brussels and Toronto required for a


full review of the effectiveness of British Weeks. but we expect to have it soon.—[Vol. 754, c. 1289–91.]

Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Lady expect to carry on the British Fairs unabated following devaluation, or is there to be an intensification or a drop in the amount of money spent on them'?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is our intention to do everything we can to assist in securing more export sales, and British Weeks, until they are proved otherwise, are doing a great job in this way.

Mr. John Hynd: In evaluating the results of the trade fairs does the Department take into account not only the sales at a fair but the repercussions throughout industry in the months that follow?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It certainly does, and for many months after that.

Mr. Marten: Will the Government support the British Trade Fair at Sao Paolo in 1969?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman some information on that later.

Mr. MacLennan: Why have there been no British trade fairs in Latin America?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to write to my hon. Friend as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

B.O.A.C. (U.S. Aircraft)

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has held, since devaluation, with the management of British Overseas Airways Corporation regarding their proposed purchases of aircraft from the United States of America.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Board of Trade has been in close touch with B.O.A.C. and is satisfied that devaluation has not weakened the case for the five additional U.S. aircraft which B.O.A.C. proposes to buy.

Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the growth of air traffic in Britain is sufficiently rapid to warrant the purchase of United States

jumbo jets? Is he also satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of them operating at a profit?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. So far as one can possibly forecast, I think that is so.

B.E.A. (Re-equipment Programme)

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the views of British European Airways have been taken into account in making his decision on the British European Airways re-equipment programme.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The views of B.E.A. have been taken fully into account, but the Government have also to have regard to wider national considerations.

Mr. Corfield: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate, first, what progress has been made in deciding how many Tridents B.E.A. will order; secondly, what progress has been made in negotiating the compensation promised to B.E.A. for being forced to order a plane not of its choice?

Mr. Mallalieu: To answer the latter part about negotiations on compensation, that will, in part, depend on the actual order that B.E.A. decides to place; but we have come to an agreement on the principle of how the compensation should be worked out. To answer the first part, the B.E.A. Board is almost daily working out what it considers will be the best action.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the original wish of B.E.A. was to order an American aircraft, the Boeing 727 200, and that devaluation has made the Trident 3B an extremely attractive and competitive aeroplane?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is so.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect which the delay in deciding upon the aircraft re-equipment programme of British European Airways will have on that airline's competitive position over the next five years.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: B.E.A. has not yet decided on its remaining fleet requirement, but I have no reason to think


that, in terms of comfort and service to the public, B.E.A. will be in any way uncompetitive in the next five years.

Mr. Fortescue: In that case, can the Minister explain how an airline can possibly be competitive if it has no competitive aircraft?

Mr. Mallalieu: As I said, in terms of comfort and service, this aircraft, which I hope B.E.A. will order, will be competitive.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the fact that Hawker Siddeley, which is soon to cease making Buccaneers at its plant near Hull—which means that 1,000 men will be unemployed there—

An Hon. Member: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Johnson: —will my hon. Friend please see the firm and expedite the decision about ordering the Hawker Siddeley 147-seater Trident?

Mr. Mallalieu: This decision is a matter for the B.E.A. Board, which, I hope, will shortly come to a conclusion.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that every day that is delayed adds to the ultimate cost which is out of all proportion to the benefit that may be gained; in other words, delay can make an uncompetitive aircraft even more uncompetitive?

Mr. Mallalieu: This is a consideration which B.E.A. has in mind.

British Airlines (American Aircraft)

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many aircraft of American manufacture are currently on order by British airlines; and what increase in the cost of these has resulted from devaluation.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Including orders by independent airlines, in regard to which information may be incomplete, 15 such aircraft are actually on order, at an estimated increased cost of £13 million after devaluation.

Mr. Corfield: Does not this highlight the absurdity of excluding all aircraft from investment grants and, in view of the crucial importance to the economy of

modern forms of transport, is it not about time that the Board of Trade reviewed this whole question?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.

Transatlantic Services (Private Carriers)

Mr. Younger: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has decided to direct the Air Transport Licensing Board to refuse applications by private carriers for transatlantic services.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend has done so only in respect of those applications, or parts of applications, which would have involved the negotiation with other Governments of traffic rights which it would be inexpedient for the time being to seek. Six applications are now before the Air Transport Licensing Board.

Mr. Younger: Is not the Minister aware that the British share of air transatlantic traffic has been steadily declining and that this regrettable decision will make it virtually certain that this decline will continue? Is he aware that this decision may have a bad effect on Prestwick airport, where there is no congestion and where there is urgent need to increase traffic?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am not sure to which decision the hon. Gentleman is referring. My right hon. Friend took action and I really do not want to discuss the weaknesses and strengths of our bargaining position on particular routes. Other applications are before the Air Transport Licensing Board, including one for traffic from Prestwick.

Mr. Corfield: Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the criteria which are adopted in deciding that it is not expedient to make applications to these overseas Governments?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is really a question of what will be the balance of advantage to this country's civil aviation. If, in asking for a particular traffic route, we consider that it would mean giving away another traffic route which we consider to be more valuable, then we would not do it.

Large Aircraft (Airport Facilities)

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the facilities needed at British airports to handle jumbo jets and other very large aircraft.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I understand that the authorities concerned at the airports likely to be used by these aircraft are providing the facilities necessary to handle both the aircraft and the large numbers of passengers they will carry.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware of the advantages of being able to operate directly from a number of different airports within a country? Will the Government make sure that all of our leading airports have the facilities which will allow them to fly direct to America?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that to provide the facilities at all of our leading airports might prove too expensive. However, it will certainly be done at Heathrow, Prestwich and Manchester.

Mr. Hirst: In considering these important factors, will the Minister also have in mind the question of noise, particularly at those airports which have been somewhat unhappily chosen, such as Leeds-Bradford, which are wrapped round by immensely densely populated areas?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. Most certainly, but I have not heard any suggestion that the Leeds-Bradford airport should be chosen.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the proposed extension of Abbotsinch, is there any reason why these facilities should not be available there?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would have thought that to do so would have been duplicating the facilities that will be available.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister assure us that adequate emergency facilities will be available at main and diversionary airports, particularly bearing in mind what is needed when there are accidents involving heavy passenger loads, and look into the question of civil defence and the A.F.S. having a special rôle in this context?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will certainly consider whether the A.F.S. could play a part. I am certain that the airport authorities will be considering the question of diversionary airports.

Civil Aviation (Development)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken in the past 12 months to stimulate the development of air links between regional centres.

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken in the past 12 months to stimulate the development of British civil aviation.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The initiative in developing air services of all sorts rests with the operators; I am looking to the Edwards Committee for advice both on how the industry may develop in future to the national advantage and on what changes may be desirable to that end.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium. Norway, Sweden and many others, have now decided to encourage regional development by subsidising their domestic airlines? Will he consider following their example in order eventually to save on other methods of regional subsidisation?

Mr. Mallalieu: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have no power to subsidise such services at present; and, according to my present thinking, I do not think that it would be desirable.

Mr. Onslow: Is it not a fact that much of the British airline industry is in a state of crisis? Does he appreciate that it is more important that he should take decisions and give operators an assurance of stability than to hide behind a smokescreen of committees?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am not hiding behind a smokescreen of committees. There has not been an investigation into the civil aviation industry for many years. We are doing that now and we want to get the decisions right.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: Is the Minister aware of the difference that adequate air communications can make to the attractiveness of North Wales? Is he aware that air communications with the


main industrial centres is an important aspect in industrial development? Will his right hon. Friend bear this in mind?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, most certainly.

Light Aviation

Mr. Monro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance he is giving to the light aviation movement.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Annual grants totalling some £20,000 are made to the British Light Aviation Centre, the General Aviation Safety Committee, and approved flying clubs. Other assistance is given by my own Department and other Departments in a variety of ways, such as reduced fees at State aerodromes and the placing of contracts with clubs for flying training.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister of State aware that an efficient radio set represents quite a high proportion of the initial cost of a light aeroplane. Could he see whether, without affecting safety the radio cost of light aviation could be reduced?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will certainly look at that point.

Air Safety Standards

Mr. Frank Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the report of his departmental inquiry on air safety standards.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: We expect to receive the report in a few weeks' time, and my right hon. Friend will, in accordance with the promise given by his predecessor on 28th June, 1967, make the conclusions available to the House as soon as possible thereafter.—[Vol. 749, cols. 98–100.]

Mr. Taylor: Will not the Minister agree that the production of this report is urgently needed, especially in the light of the calamitous air crashes which have taken place in the past year? Will he, therefore, take every step to see that the report is produced at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is important to get the conclusions of the investigation, which, as I say, will be available shortly.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister intend to install radar at Turnhouse before the tourist season begins?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is another question.

Stansted Airport

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish his revised proposals for the development of Stansted Airport.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The revised proposals for the development of Stansted were published in mid-January.

Mr. Onslow: Is it not the fact that the Government have now decided not to lay the necessary Orders before Parliament because they are afraid of being defeated in another place, if not in this House? Is it not also a fact that they intend to use the need to hold a local inquiry as a pretext for delay, and would it not be much more satisfactory in the circumstances now to have a proper inquiry into our whole national airport policy?

Mr. Mallalieu: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The delay in laying the Order is simply so that we may consult the local authorities.

Mr. Boston: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is rather extraordinary that the efforts of his Department and of the Ministry of Housing to be as helpful as possible by proposing this realignment should be greeted by yet another demand for yet another inquiry, and would he confirm the statement made in the House that there will be no more inquiries?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do think that it is odd. I confirm the statement.

Mr. Kirk: As the figures contained in the Minister's circular letter had to be corrected by an official of the Ministry of Housing within a fortnight of its being issued, and in view of the uncertainty this created all round, would it not be a good idea to have an inquiry to find out what the exact position is?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think we know the exact position.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY],— considered.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Armstrong.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (STORM DAMAGE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in this grave debate, may I say that I have many names of hon. Members wishing to take part, including all the hon. Members whose constituencies suffered the heaviest damage. I urge those who are called to make reasonably brief speeches.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: On Sunday, 15th January, what has now become commonly known as Hurricane Low Q was moving north-east across the Atlantic when it changed course and moved due east over the central belt of Scotland. It roared across this area as fur north as Perth and as far south as the Lake District. Some, in looking back on it, have compared it to the night of the Tay disaster. What is known is that on that night of 15th January the winds across the central belt of Scotland were certainly the strongest since records have been kept over the past 50 years.
Between 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock on the Monday morning of 16th January the damage was done and the hurricane left behind it a trail of death, injury and destruction. As many hon. Members know, the area which was most affected was along Clydeside and the Forth Valley. As a result of the climax of this two hours, 20 people lost their lives, seven have died since in accidents in buildings which had become dangerous as a result of the storm, over 100 were seriously injured, and over 1,800 were made homeless.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has already told the House that the total damage in town and country is estimated at £25 million. It may well be that when the opportunity occurs to make the full calculation the damage will be seen to be

greater. Certainly, the task of reconstruction following this damage is daunting. Therefore, I submit that this, alas, is a disaster on a national scale. It is a disaster beyond the resources of the people of Scotland to meet on their own. We in the rest of Britain would not wish them to do so, nor to face the consequences of a national disaster on this scale solely on their own resources
That is why the Opposition are raising the matter today in debate on the Floor of the House, so that the House can show its genuine concern for those affected and put forward ways by which the hardship and suffering can be reduced. The consequences of Hurricane Low Q are all human problems. We can talk in terms of buildings—and, of course, much more than houses and tenements are involved; schools, churches, docks and factories are also concerned—or we can talk of stock, crops and timber. I found in the countryside, particularly in Stirling-shire, the feeling that there had been insufficient recognition of the damage which those who live in the country had suffered as a result of the storm.
But what we are really dealing with in the debate are the sad consequences of the loss of families and friends whom nobody and nothing can replace, of homes which have been destroyed, of precious belongings and possessions which have been damaged, very often beyond repair, of capital and savings, especially in the countryside, which have been wiped out, and of jobs and livelihoods which have been imperilled. These hardships and sufferings, which are continuing in some cases, must affect each one of us here deeply.
It therefore behoves us to have a constructive debate. We look to the Secretary of State to tell us his proposals, and it is for each of us to take the responsibility for putting forward such ideas as we have on how the problems can be dealt with. The House looks to the Government as well as the local authorities for speedy, sustained and effective action to deal with the situation. They can be assured that everything they do in this regard will have the support of the House.
No warning was received that Hurricane Low Q would change its direction and veer to the east. Perhaps the Secretary of State can investigate how this


came about, or he may be able to tell us whether it is possible to make improvements in meteorological information which would in future circumstances give a quicker indication of danger of this kind.
What it meant was that the emergency services in the central belt of Scotland had no warning that the storm was about to hit them. It is a tribute to them, to the local authorities, and to other official services, as well as voluntary organisations, that they were able to get into action so quickly without warning, and that in so short a time they achieved so much.
The reception centres, in particular, and those who staffed them, both officials and volunteers, including girls from local schools and the Salvation Army, deserve the highest praise for the way in which they were able to man them and look after the homeless. Certainly, those I spoke to in Govan Town Hall said that they could not possibly have been looked after better.
It is interesting that what proved to be the key to the efficiency of the reception centre organisation was the immediate installation of high-powered radio telephone equipment. There is a lesson here for the whole country, that it is this specific type of equipment being readily accessible and immediately moved to the spot which enables the rest of the organisation to function so efficiently.
We must remember that although Glasgow is the greatest city, a very large city and the one which has suffered the most damage and naturally receives most prominence, other towns and cities were affected. Glasgow has rehoused by far the greater majority of those who were homeless, at the expense of having to push its own housing list further back in the process. We must recognise the contribution which has been made. I express the hope that the factors involved in running private properties will, when they find that they have properties empty under the same ownership, be able to help the homeless where required, in the same way as local authorities have taken the burden on themselves. This is a fair responsibility to be divided between local authorities and private owners, where accommodation is available.
It is now clear that the emergency coverings were put into position, quite rightly, both on municipal and private houses equally, with reasonable expedition. But the wind and the rain two nights after the storm accentuated the damage, particularly to people's personal belongings, furniture, chattels, and so on. On 31st January, Wednesday of last week, there were winds of 90 miles an hour sweeping right across the same area. They were 120 miles an hour during the hurricane, but 90 miles an hour is quite fast enough. Again, last weekend there were strong winds.
What this has done in many cases is to remove the temporary coverings, and, therefore, to a certain extent, to undo the good work which had been done. So the local authorities are again faced with this task of reactivating the emergency organisations in order to deal with these coverings. This has to be done. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that all of this emphasises that, although a good job was done with the emergency repairs and coverings, there is now a vital urgency to get on with the permanent repairs. This is the only proper safeguard against winds of this nature which are sweeping the area from time to time.
This has to be a carefully planned operation. using all the resources available, south of the Border as well as in Scotland. All the drive possible has to be put behind it. At the moment, those concerned are talking in terms of a time span of two years to do this work. I would suggest that that timetable is just not good enough. Two years is too long a period to wait before an emergency of this kind can be satisfactorily dealt with. It is another argument for treating this as a national disaster, which has to be handled on a national basis.
Here, I would like to put forward certain proposals, and I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to put forward proposals, for dealing with restoration in the cities and the towns. My first point is this: is it necessary to return to the previous construction of chimney heads and chimneys? This, I believe, depends upon the operation of the Clean Air Act, 1956. Where the damaged properties are in an existing smoke controlled area, the situation requires no further action, the chimney heads need not be replaced, and


the repairs can be much more quickly and cheaply done. In other areas, and, I suspect, the larger areas, smoke control areas have yet to be created. This poses a very great problem, because the time taken to create new areas is far too long to deal with this situation.
The new areas have to be surveyed by the local authority, there has to be a public inquiry, the Minister has to confirm the result and the area only comes into existence six months after that. I have made inquiries, and I am told that the average time taken from the beginning of such a scheme to the end is between nine and 12 months. In this context, I do not believe that this time phasing is acceptable, and I would suggest that the Secretary of State has to see how he can extend these areas much more quickly than that so that repairs can be made in those areas not at present smoke controlled, without the restoration of these heavy chimney heads.

Mr. Eric Heffer: On the point about the chimneys, would the right hon. Gentleman like to explain what will happen to those houses which are burning smokeless fuel? In those cases the chimneys are still being used.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this perfectly valid point. It means that there has to he an acceptance by those in these areas of going over to electricity or gas rather than to smokeless fuel. This is a proposition that would have to be put to them by the local authority in the context of what is done to speed up repairs. I believe that most people with damaged homes would look at this sympathetically. In any case, the grants to individual home owners under the Act are generous. They are compulsorily seven-tenths of the cost and the local authority can use its discretion up to the full 100 per cent.
It also helps a local authority, because it can get back from the Exchequer between three-tenths and three-fifths of what it spends. I would suggest that this Act is a means of helping considerably those who have been rendered homeless or whose homes require substantial repairs.
Secondly, the skilled labour force available to deal with the present situation is inadequate. I understand that there are 2,000 slaters in Glasgow who will be fully

occupied, and that they will be required elsewhere as well. It takes four years to train them for work on high buildings and, therefore, any question of a crash training programme would seem to be out of the question. I would suggest that the onus should be upon the Government to seek, throughout England and Wales, through the local authorities as well as the Ministry of Labour employment offices, those either skilled or who could be available after comparatively little additional training, to help the labour force in Scotland.
Of course, it will be necessary to provide them with homes and to show them what I understand is now the position, that there are agreed payment arrangements for the slaters doing this reconstruction scheme. If this can be shown throughout England and Wales to be the case then it ought to be possible to bring in additional men to help the labour force during this time. It requires a major effort, but I understand that it was done by the electricity boards when their power lines were down. I suggest that it should be done on an extended basis to deal with the problem of the reconstruction of buildings.
The third thing I would suggest to the Secretary of State, having got this under way, is that a survey is urgently necessary of all existing property in respect of the chimney heads. He will have seen, as I did, those which were so obviously to the naked eye well out of true, sometimes outwards and a danger to the streets and sometimes inwards, a danger to the buildings themselves. I doubt whether those who have not seen the consequences can really visualise what happens when three tons of solid masonry falls through a roof. I certainly could not until I had seen it. It goes through the roof, and the next floor, and the next floor, and creates a bomb crater in the basement, leaving death behind it. It is urgent that there should be a complete survey of these properties, and action taken. This will require further resources of manpower but I believe that now the storm has shown us this, action must be taken.
My fourth point is that all of this depends upon finance. Her Majesty's Government have already announced £500,000, to be the preliminary contribution as a loan basis for immediate use by


the local authorities. As I understand, the City of Glasgow has stated that it would require about £400,000 to enable it to get its own work under way. There is a feeling in Scotland, perhaps a somewhat bitter feeling, that Her Majesty's Government and their predecessors have been more generous in the past.
In the "Torrey Canyon" episode, the Government immediately came forward with an offer of 75 per cent. grants to local authorities and paid £1,600,000 on that episode alone. It is essential that the Government should make known quickly and clearly what is to be the permanent basis for financing the reconstruction which is necessary both by local authorities and by private individuals.
Turning to chattels—furniture and furnishings—the Ministry of Social Security has power to make once-for-all immediate grants to deal with emergencies of this kind, and I understand that it is already doing so. If that is not enough, the Lord Provost has announced that he can help from his fund. I did not find that this was widely known. As a result of this debate, it will become generally known that his fund can help. He did not make a national appeal. That was the Lord Provost's own decision and it must be a matter for him. But it raises the question whether what he has in his fund is sufficient to supplement what the Ministry of Social Security can do to help those whose furnishings and furniture have been destroyed.
If it proves not to be enough, I ask the Secretary of State to authorise Ministry of Social Security officials to use their discretion to make the additional payments which prove to be necessary. This will obviously depend on the means of those who have lost their possessions, but I believe that it would be the wish of the House that the Ministry of Social Security should use its discretion to the full in these cases.
Turning to the question of repairs, the Secretary of State said that the total damage comes to £16 million—£9 million for local authorities and £7 million for those privately housed. What is proposed is that £500,000 should be paid on a loan basis from the contingency fund. I suggest that grants as well as loans will have to be made both to local authorities and to private owners to

meet the bill of £16 million. This should be done comparably for both local authorities and individual owners.
I know that the Secretary of State has been somewhat critical of those who did not insure against storm damage of this kind. In fact, most local authorities are unable to insure in these cases. It is, in some ways, expecting a great deal of an individual owner to insure against a hurricane of this kind in this country. I should have thought that it was generally agreeable that, although those who have insured and received payments should have them taken into account in any grant or loan system, grants and loans will be necessary to enable the repairs on a scale of £16 million to be done. Therefore, I suggest that this must be part of the permanent financial arrangement.
I understand that private owners operating through factors have suggested that the Secretary of State should set up a loan fund which they would repay over 20 or 30 years. That is their decision. I understand that they would be prepared to do that. I do not think that that is a system which would work with individual owner-occupiers in Glasgow, many of whom have not great means, who have had their homes destroyed. It could be said that they could be given loans and that in the end some of them might find themselves forced to default. That is not a satisfactory approach to this problem. It is much better for the Government to face the fact that in those cases where means do not allow repairs to be done they would have to make a grant straight away as part of the permanent settlement rather than to leave it many years hence when people find themselves still unable to pay the loans and will have faced meanwhile many years of anxiety and worry.
I urge the Secretary of State to work out a basis of loan and grant for these repairs to take into account insurance payments which have been made by those insured and, in the case of owner-occupiers and property owners, to take into account means which they have available, to a certain extent, to carry out their own repairs. This is the only satisfactory basis for a permanent long-term solution. I urge the Secretary of State to do that quickly, because until he does it neither local authorities nor


property owners or owner-occupiers can have the means to pay for the repairs. Until he does it the builders and slaters cannot have confidence that they will get payment for any work which they start.
Therefore, the key to the urgent development of permanent reconstruction rests in the Secretary of State's proposals for finance. It is satisfactory that the property owners and slaters have reached agreement, I am told, on working at weekends and on doing standard repairs at a standard price. This is very encouraging. It behoves the Secretary of State to provide the financial backing so that they can get on with the work.
I turn to the countryside. Nineteen out of every 20 farms in this belt have been affected in some way or other. Many farmers, certainly those to whom I spoke, have suffered damage of between £1,000 and £3,000. Only 5 per cent. of those affected were insured to any degree at all. Of course, much could not be insured. They could not insure against storm damage to stacks, crops, timber, poultry and other farm produce. Therefore, special measures are necessary in any event. The nearest example to this damage, I suggest, was the storm damage of 1953 which swept Eastern and South-Eastern England and caused floods, but it also swept much of Eastern Scotland and produced a mass of wind-blown timber and damage to farms.
I should like to make proposals for the countryside. I deal, first, with horticulture. Much of the glass in the Clyde Valley was destroyed. The whole capital of some growers has gone. Their crops for next season will not materialise. Their capital has been wiped out and they have no immediate current income. It is true that under the Horticultural Improvement Act they can get a grant of one-third plus 5 per cent. supplement. I suggest to the Secretary of State that, when a man's savings and capital investment have been wiped out, this is not a satisfactory percentage to enable him to start again and that it should be supplemented. as in the towns, by a grant-loan scheme.
Secondly, many farmers have been affected by a loss of current income, because their cash crops have been swept away, as in the case of hay, or in some cases, as with poultry, entirely wiped out. The Government must consider help in these cases. The Scottish N.F.U. has no

disaster appeal fund as was the case in England and Wales in 1953 to which the Government contributed £for £. Therefore, the Government would be entitled to help in this respect in exactly the same way as if they were contributing £for £to an N.F.U. disaster fund.
The third point concerns timber. The Secretary of State told us that the damage was estimated at £30 million hoppus feet. This compares with 35 to 40 million in the disaster of 1953. There are some lessons to be learned from the action taken in 1953. The circumstances in many ways are comparable. On this occasion, a great deal of the woodland is now broken timber and useful only for pulp. It is of greatly reduced value. Even if the full value at present of the plantations were to be paid to the owner, he would get much less than the value of the woodland when it would have been fully developed. Therefore, he is suffering a considerable future capital loss. Action is urgently needed because of the possible destruction of it by insects while it is lying as broken timber.
So I would make a proposal that special arrangements as to blown timber should be put into force similar to those of 1953 and be given priority wherever possible. There is, of course, no longer the general licensing system which enabled this to be done in 1953. Nevertheless, there are various ways which could be used to help. The Forestry Commission can do so in dealing with its own woodlands and will presumably do so automatically, but in the case of the dedicated private woodlands the Forestry Commission can deal with them through its licensing arrangements.
I would utter a word of caution: that, of course, where those woodlands are providing current income for a woodland owner, the enforcement of this licensing system to hold back timber has to be used with discretion, otherwise one farmer is being helped only at the expense of another. But this can be worked out by the Forestry Commission.
Secondly, additional labour may be required in some areas to remove this timber and, again, special arrangements will have to be made for it, both for its accommodation and transport, and agreed arrangements for paying for it. I would also suggest to the Secretary of State what he probably well knows


already, that as a great deal of extractive machinery will have to be used for dealing with the blown timber that machinery should be now available for investment grant, which would help those who have now been endamaged.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State must try to inaugurate agreements with Government Departments, perhaps particularly the Ministry of Transport over Motorway fencing and railways, with the N.C.B. and with the local authorities about the priority use of blown timber. At the same time, he may rind it possible, or the Forestry Commission may find it possible, to persuade the mills, whether at Fort William, or Workington, or Ellesmere Port, to give priority to the use of this to get the blown timber off the ground as soon as possible. This may involve additional cost for the different mills for which they will look either to the local authorities or to farmers themselves after they have been helped. There is then the cost of freight. In 1953, the Government made special arrangements to cover two-thirds of the additional rail freight involved in transporting blown timber up to 50s. a ton, and I would suggest that this is done again, but with the figures brought up to date and comparable with modern prices.
My fourth point concerns the farm houses and buildings and fences. Many of these could not be insured. Farm buildings themselves were not insurable, nor was fencing. Improvement grants might be used by the Secretary of State's Department, but, again, I suggest that the present percentages are not adequate for a man who has lost all his capital and investment or a very great deal of it, and in any case farm houses themselves are excluded from improvement grants. Furthermore, where buildings have already been improved—in one case I saw new fencing which had had an improvement grant—but have got to he entirely replaced the farmer cannot claim again for improvement grant.
This, in normal circumstances, is absolutely logical and right, and that is within the terms of the Act. The Secretary of State would have either to amend the Act or find some other way of helping those who have received improvement grants and whose new buildings and fences have now been destroyed by the hurricane. So

I put to him this point which needs urgent action. I think that the House would certainly be prepared to help him.
I have put forward a considerable number of constructive proposals for dealing with this serious situation, but they do require speedy and decisive action by the Secretary of State and the Government. The Secretary of State and the Government are the only people who can take the action. They are the only ones who can take these decisions. Of course, it comes back, fundamentally, to finance and to the necessary legislative provisions to enable the finance to be used. In the disaster of 1953, the damage was approximately twice the size—£40 million to £50 million in total—but the local authorities did receive from the Government £5 million, and the £for £contribution of the Lord Mayor of London's Disaster Fund, which reached £6 million.
I would suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a long gap between the Government's approach then and what he has put forward as a preliminary contribution of £500,000 as a loan bank on which local authorities can act. I hope that today he will be able to tell us that he has now thought through this problem, and is able to make a clear and effective announcement which the local authorities, and all those individuals who have been affected, can act upon. I say to the Secretary of State: go to it—and he will get the backing of the House.

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Today's debate allows me to expand on the statements which I made to the House on 16th January and 25th January, and to say more than I then could about the action which the Government are taking.
I think that I would be expressing the wish of the House if I were to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the constructive nature of his speech.
The storm which struck Scotland on the night of 14th-15th January left behind it a trail of devastation and destruction: 21 people were killed; at least 250,000 houses were damaged, over 1,300 of them beyond repair.
One can walk through Glasgow and wonder where the damage is. But anybody who has recently seen Glasgow


from the air will have been astonished and horrified at the area of green tarpaulins. These cover roofs in all parts of the city. The storm did not discriminate between the rich and the poor, the new areas and the old areas. It damaged not only old and inferior houses in the centre, but also some well-maintained property.
Glasgow did not suffer alone. Greenock, Paisley, Clydebank, Ruther-glen and many other towns suffered severely. Although no close estimate can yet be made, the cost of putting right the damage may be as much as £25 million to £30 million. The main elements of this are about £10 million in respect of local authority housing, schools and other buildings; £8 million for private housing; and £6 million for agriculture, horticulture and woodlands.
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman spoke as he did about the emergency services and how they were tested and were found to be worth while. The local authority services were in action right away, supported by voluntary agencies, and rescue and welfare operations went on all through the night. On the morning of Monday, 15th January there began the issue to local authorities of bedding and other supplies from hospital and defence stocks, and work began immediately to make houses wind and water tight.
On 16th and 17th January my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary visited a number of the areas worst affected and had preliminary discussions with the local authorities. Then, on the morning of 17th January, the Minister of State met representatives of the house property owners and of the building trades in Glasgow. This started the series of discussions which have continued and which have led to their being able to get on with the work of repair, whether on private or council houses, without worrying about who is to pay for this and who is paying for that. Our determination right from the start was that the work must be got on with, and that nothing should be allowed to impede it.
They discussed the problems arising from the scale of the necessary repairs. The seriousness of these problems had

already become apparent. Having on the afternoon of that same Wednesday seen for myself some of the damage in Glasgow, I had a meeting with nine of the local authorities whose people had suffered most.
I asked them to let me know their immediate needs and, if they could, to let me have on the following Monday the best assessment that they could make of the cost of repairing certain types of property. I arranged for officers in my Department to take up posts in Glasgow, Clydebank and Greenock, each with the responsibility of maintaining liaison with a group of local authorities. That was put into effect the next day. On the same day, the Department's communications staff set up emergency wireless links for Glasgow Corporation's Welfare Department. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this, because it proved invaluable to the Corporation, to the police and to everyone else concerned.
The immediate urgent need was for large numbers of tarpaulins for first-aid repairs to house roofs. During the seven days beginning on the 19th, about 13,000 tarpaulins were drawn from Government stores in England and transported to Scotland by the Army and the Royal Air Force and distributed to the areas where they were needed.
On Monday, 22nd January, I held a return meeting in Glasgow. This time, not representatives of nine local authorities turned up but 120 representatives of a very much larger number of local authorities. They gave me some of the estimates for which I had asked and, from this meeting and the discussions which I had on the same day with property owners and with representatives of the building trade, one matter in particular became clear to me. It was that we had to find urgently some means of ensuring that money would be available for essential repair work on private houses.
That is why I got agreement and announced to the House on 25th January —which, strangely enough, was another day of memory for a blast of Jannvar' wind—that an immediate advance of up to £500,000 was being made available for this purpose from the Civil Contingencies Fund. As will emerge from what I say later, this is only an advance instalment


of the help ultimately to be given from the Exchequer.
We were faced with the problem that we could not expect people to go on roofs in these dangerous circumstances unless they knew that someone would pay them. The property owners did not know the extent of the availability of insurance and, rather than see a time lag, we put this scheme into operation. As a result, work has not been held up, and appreciation has been expressed about the effectiveness of these arrangements.
Throughout the period of which I have been speaking, and since then, we have had valuable help from the Army. There were nearly 600 people on the job, both Regulars and T.A. members, and Sappers were brought up from England to do specialised jobs. They moved furniture from damaged houses to temporary depots, cleared obstructions, carried out demolitions, and joined in the work of emergency repairs to roofs.
An idea of the damage can be gained from the fact that the Post Office made special arrangements to deal with 66,000 telephones cut off by the storm and has been able to effect temporary repairs in almost all cases. There were extensive interruptions to electricity supplies, but the electricity boards were able to make most reconnections within hours and to complete this work by 26th January.
As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, from the outset the Ministry of Social Security has worked closely with the local authority welfare departments in helping the homeless and others who have suffered, and it has been making the discretionary payments which he suggested.
The Ministry of Public Building and Works has operated an advisory service to local authorities, contractors and merchants on sources of supply of building materials and has dealt with shortages as they have arisen. We have had the help of the Ministry of Labour and the co-operation of employers in building up the force of skilled labour which is necessary to carry forward the work of repair. In addition, we are already organising people to come up from England. That is being done at Greenock, where they are being housed in a hostel. It is also being done in Glasgow and

in Rutherglen. We cannot be satisfied with the kind of time limits that people are talking about. We want to get it done quickly, otherwise the stock of houses will rapidly diminish.

Sir Myer Galpern: Can my right hon. Friend tell us the number of people brought up from England? Is he prepared to bring them up even at the expense of halting phases of house building in more fortunate areas of England?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that my hon. Friend can ask me to stop essential house building in England, but I can tell him that we have had to take people off the house building programmes in Scotland, regrettable as that may be, to ensure that priority is given to the storm damaged areas, although there is a limit to which that can be done without affecting other trades. It is an intricate operation.
On Friday, 26th January, the day after I made my second statement in the House, I sent the text of it to all town and county councils in Scotland, together with a circular. This said that, if limited financial resources would otherwise lead to delay in proceeding with essential work, application should be made to the Scottish Development Department for an advance from the funds that had been made available. That is the £500,000 to which I have referred already.
The circular also dealt specifically with instances in which a local authority judged it necessary to organise repair work to houses in private ownership, and drew attention to the importance of avoiding giving owners the impression that the authority would be relieving them of ultimate financial responsibility for the work. It also said that adequate control must be exercised over the authorisation of work and the rates of payment under arrangements comparable to those being devised in Glasgow.
By this time, good progress had been made with the Glasgow scheme. On Monday, 29th January we issued to the Corporation a large initial sum to finance the essential repair work to be done under the scheme. As this scheme is the model which other local authorities were urged by the circular to follow, perhaps I should describe it to the House.
The first point to be made about it is that it will apply only to house properties, primarily tenements, where the owners are unable to instruct repairs immediately because of inadequate financial resources and limited insurance cover. It will not apply, for example, where properties are covered by adequate comprehensive insurance. We gather from the insurance companies that ordinary comprehensive insurance covers this kind of storm damage.
In the initial period, the repairs which will be financed will be limited to those necessary to make properties wind and water-tight and to prevent further deterioration.
The factors of house property will list the properties the owners of which in their opinion will be unable to instruct repairs for the reasons that I have mentioned. Tenements in multiple owner-ship present something of a problem. In this context, when we talk about owner-occupiers in Glasgow, we refer to owner- occupiers of tenement property in which they share ownership, it may well be, with similarly placed owner-occupiers or with the remnant of the original factored ownership. This is what makes it more complex and very difficult to work on the basis of grant, but I am prepared to look at specific cases.
In the case of a tenement in multiple owner-ship, arrangements will be made for all dwellings in the tenement to be included in the same list. The factors will give the lists to Glasgow Corporation. At the same time, they will notify any insurance company concerned with the property and ask their normal maintenance contractor to assess the repairs required and provide a rough estimate of the cost.
The Corporation has set up a special office under its Civil Defence Officer to administer the scheme. The office has professional and technical staff, some of them lent by the Scottish Development Department, as well as the necessary administrative and clerical staff.
On receipt of lists from factors, the office will check that the properties listed are in a condition which justifies permanent repair, or a modified repair, and are not likely to be demolished in the near future, for example, because of redevelopment or a road widening.
In the meantime, the factors will ask the owners to sign a form of undertaking which requests the Corporation to have the repairs done and commits the owners to repay the Corporation, if necessary, over a period. These undertakings will be sent to the special office together with the statement of work to be done and the rough estimate of the cost. On their receipt, the Corporation will authorize the work to go ahead, if they are satisfied that the property is appropriate for repair and that the repairs are reasonable and within the scheme.
When the work is finished, the account will be rendered to the Corporation through the factor. It will be the factor's responsibility to check the account, for example, to ensure that it covers only work necessarily done, that the hours charged for are reasonable and are priced at the agreed rate, and that the prices of materials are correct and in line with current prices. The account will be certified and sent to the Corporation, which will pay the contractor. It will be open to the Corporation to see that the work has been properly carried out and satisfy itself as to the extent that it merits payment. Separately, and probably after the account has been paid, the Corporation will arrange with the factor the method and period for the recovery of the cost from the owner.
As I said in the circular, I would hope that schemes by other local authorities would be on much the same lines. I am afraid that I cannot tell the House precisely how many authorities are arranging for permanent repairs to private houses after the initial first aid, because they need not consult me. But I know that Greenock, Paisley and Rutherglen are doing so. Fortunately, schemes of this sort are not required in all local authority areas in Scotland. In some the damage was relatively light, and there will be no complications where houses are detached or semi-detached and covered by comprehensive insurance.
The real problem arises from a complex of circumstances There are tenements with many occupants and multiple ownership. There are others which, because of a shortage of housing, have to be kept in use, despite age and unsatisfactory features which make them a "bad risk" for insurance so that in relation to their value the insurance companies just


will not cover them. There are others which have been bought for a few hundred pounds by people for whom home ownership, in the sense we usually use that term, is quite beyond their resources, but for whom this is the only way of getting somewhere to live.
In these circumstances, houses which, before the storm damage, were fit for occupation, and were occupied, might well be lost for ever. This certainly would happen if the damage were not quickly repaired. Deterioration would set in and eventually the houses would no longer be repairable at reasonable cost. If houses which can now be repaired are not repaired and put back into service, the housing problem in Glasgow and some of the other towns affected by the storm will become even more serious than it now is.
We have certain statutory powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966. For instance, there is a procedure by which the local authority can require the owner to repair, or pay for the repair of, a house which is unfit, but which can be made fit at reasonable cost. Indeed, the arrangement worked out in Glasgow is the equivalent of that procedure, but streamlined to meet the urgency of the conditions created by the storm. I have no doubt that all concerned will agree that it is a proper use of the authorities' general powers.
As I explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) last Wednesday, this arrangement for local authorities to organise repair work to private houses does not relieve the owner of ultimate financial responsibility. We are not seeking to compensate owners for losses, but to secure that our housing stock is not depleted unnecessarily by failure to repair because of financial hardship or financial uncertainty.

Mr. John Rankin: In making that statement about the private owners and costs, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, particularly in Glasgow, there are many private owners who are poor, that some have been waiting 20 years for a Corporation house, and, in order to have somewhere to dwell, have bought single tenement houses for as little as £100? Will

my right hon. Friend give special consideration to such cases?

Mr. Ross: Yes. We appreciate this and, when we go into these matters, we will have these facts brought to us case by case in relation to tenement property.
The owner must, therefore, undertake to repay the local authority's outlays, though where it proves impossible to make the repayment in a single sum at an early date, the local authority may agree to an arrangement to pay by instalments. This might meet some of the difficulties.
We have to face the fact that the scheme seems likely to result in some residual cost to the local authorities. We can expect that a large part of the total paid to contractors by the authorities will eventually be repaid by owners. But, for one reason or another, some of the outlays will eventually prove to be irrecoverable. Obviously, it is impossible at present to judge what the amount might be.
This is, of course, in addition to the cost to the local authorities of repairing the damage done to their own houses and other properties. Taken together the total bill is likely to be formidable.
As regards the scheme for helping the repairs to private houses which I have already explained, any deficit falling on authorities which adopt this scheme will attract a special 75 per cent. Grant. But this is likely to be the lesser part of the cost to most local authorities, who will have to repair their own property, including large numbers of council houses. We cannot know for some considerable time what the cost of the storm to each authority will be.
This will depend on the scale of the damage suffered; on the relative proportions of private and public housing in the area; on the extent to which the damage to each type of property was covered by insurance; and on a number of other factors.
As soon as the authorities have collected the facts we will go into all these matters with them. It will need to be done individually, because the circumstances of each authority may well prove to be widely different. An assessment will have to be made, authority by authority, of the financial consequences


of the storm damage for its ratepayers. Although I cannot tell the House what the precise outcome will be for each authority, I give it this assurance. The Government are resolved that at the end of the day no local authority will have to bear an undue additional rate burden as a result of the storm. My assessment is that this may well involve Exchequer assistance running into millions of pounds, rather than hundreds of thousands.
I would now like to turn to agriculture—

Mr. Heath: Before the Secretary of Sate leaves that point, may I put this to him. What he has now said, without being specific on a percentage, is that the local authorities will not have to do anything unreasonable concerning their rates to pay for the damage which has been caused to their own housing; that will be covered by the Exchequer. I think that is what he said about the local authorities. Why is he saying that every private owner, whether large or small, who has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), has to cover the complete loss that he has sustained unless it is insured?

Mr. Ross: The point is that the prudent private owner covers himself in respect of his property by insurance. Until we know the numbers who are covered by insurance, it will be impossible to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, namely, to make any particular grant.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Mr. Ian MacArthur(Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Ross: I would like to go on with my speech. I am listening to every suggestion made today and that is why I appreciated the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will weigh every suggestion that has been constructively made to see whether we can make the right approach.

Mr. Heath: Could not the Secretary of State consider saying, or getting his hon. Friend to say when he winds up the debate, that, after allowing for insurance, no individual owner will have to bear an unreasonable burden, according to his means, for the damage which he has sustained in the hurricane?

Mr. Ross: It is very difficult even to say that. I have discussed this with the property owners in Glasgow and they seem reasonably satisfied with the scheme we have produced, although they suggest that if the burden is onerous in respect of certain people they would like to come back to me and talk about it. If they do come back, I am prepared to listen to them. However, it is far too early at this stage to give a blanket grant scheme, bearing in mind the variety of circumstances. Some of these tenements are owned by banks and some may well be owned by brewers. On the other hand, some are the obligation of the kind of person about whom my hon. Friend spoke. This is why we have to be flexible in our approach.

Mr. William Baxter: Mr. William Baxter(West Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but I would like to get on with my speech.
I would like, now, to say something about agriculture. In the situation immediately after the gale, the immediate concern was to care for the homeless, make temporary repairs to houses, pull down unsafe buildings, and generally secure human lives. If public notice was concentrated on town rather than country, this was because these immediate problems were greater in scale, more drastic, and it may well be more dramatic, in the towns and cities.
But the countryside was not forgotten. Unfortunately, many parts of the countryside were cut off because they were affected more by the loss of telephones. Officers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland were out immediately seeking information on which to act. The first reports were on Ministers' desks by Tuesday morning, 16th January, and Ministerial and official attention thereafter was continuous.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made several visits to see the damage for himself, first on 21st January in Renfrew and Dunbartonshire, and then on 23rd and 24th January in the Carse of Stirling, Dunbartonshire and Lanark-shire, with special reference to horticulture. This was followed by talks with agriculture and forestry officials, and a meeting with representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland


about the effects of the storm and the measures being taken to deal with it.
A survey of farms was not straightforward, since at that time the inspectors had to observe the foot-and-mouth restrictions, and many telephones were out of order. But it soon became clear that the effects had been serious. When many people think of the Central Lowlands of Scotland, they think of the industrial heart of Scotland. It is this, of course, but it is much more. It contains a large part of the best arable land in Scotland, and the Clyde Valley is the centre of the Scottish horticultural industry. Glass, of course, suffered particularly heavily.
Most farms in the affected counties suffered damage, some of it severe. Lighter buildings of the nissen hut type and other poorly constructed buildings suffered more severely. In general, soundly constructed, well-maintained traditional buildings withstood the blast very well. The modern portal-framed structures also stood up very well, but many old farm buildings, not worth very much in value, but costing a great deal more to replace, suffered severe damage. Fences, too, were often knocked down by falling trees.
I announced that special arrangements had been made to deal urgently with applications for farm improvement grant for the restoration of farm buildings, fences, and other fixed equipment damaged by the storm. These grants are payable under the Farm Improvement Scheme, under Section 30 and Schedule 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1967. The rate of grant is 30 per cent., including the 5 per cent. investment grant.
Assistance under the Scheme is subject to general conditions, and will be payable for the restoration of damage to farm buildings, provided that the cost on any one farm is at least £100. The building can either be restored, or a new one built. In either case the cost qualifying for grant will be the cost reasonably incurred, less the amount of insurance received, so if there is no insurance they will get a bigger grant.
Before work can qualify for this grant, my Department must have issued authority in writing for it to proceed, and normally this is given only after an inspection by my Department's profes-

sional officers. In view of the need to get ahead quickly, the first move that I made was to make arrangements for this authority to be issued locally, and this was done on 22nd January.
In some cases farmers had started repair work immediately, and I then arranged that where my officers were satisfied that such a start was essential they should make such authority retrospective to 15th January. It will be seen, therefore, that we have been as flexible as possible within our statutory powers. But we need to know what work is going on, and if farmers have not already done so they should, in their own interests, apply as quickly as possible to the area offices of the Department of Agriculture.
I may say that with the build-up of applications, particularly during the past week, there is an indication that this is now being done at a greater rate than before. So far, 1,011 applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme have been received in respect of work estimated to cost £646,000.
While I give these figures today for the information of hon. Members, I stress that they do not necessarily reflect the total damage. At a later date, when all applications have been received and examined, I shall be able to give a reasonably accurate figure of damage to farm buildings. In the meantime, work is going ahead on new construction.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the record, accept that whereas it is possible to have a 30 per cent. farm improvement grant, in the majority of cases which have been discussed only 15 per cent. is applicable because the areas are clearly adjoining woodlands—this is where the trees have fallen—or they are not viable units? This includes, for example, the whole of the Government's smallholdings. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want to be a good landlord there.

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Lady knows that I am a very good landlord there. I remember going round part of Dumfriesshire with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). The improvements which were to be made were to be on the Government's property. On the other point, I would not like to be tied by words now.

Mr. Michael Noble: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear up one point about which I am doubtful. He said that he was trying to assess damage, and would be able to do it only when the applications came in. Does not he realise that quite a number of farmers will not put in claims to repair damage because they will think that they are not able to pay for it, and therefore his list may not be complete?

Mr. Ross: This is always so, but I shall be surprised if there are many farmers in this category.
The Department's surveyors are keeping a close watch on the supply of building materials to see that repair work is not held up because of local shortages of materials. The Ministry of Public Building and Works says that so far no serious shortages have been reported.
Farm houses and cottages are not grant-aided under the Farm Improvement Scheme. This covers the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, who suggested that something should be done about them. Many of these were damaged, but these should, of course, be insured under the usual comprehensive policy which covers storm damage, and rural owners are therefore being treated in the same way as owners of private property in the towns which was damaged.
I said earlier that only a small number of stock have been lost. In relation to the scale of damage to buildings, this stock loss is very small, and even within the individual farming enterprise is not generally of such a scale as to cause undue hardship. More serious losses, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing, may well be due to the fact that a few people have had to sell off their poultry flocks quickly because of the collapse of their hen houses. They, too, in particular cases, will he covered by the Farm Improvement Scheme, but not those who are more intensively producing and are covered by the Board of Trade grant. But we will probably get an opportunity to look into this on the basis of the applications received.
With regard to crops, the major damage resulted to hay in stacks, particularly in the Carse of Stirling. Where this was baled, it should be salvagable, and where it was not, much of it was recovered, although losses were severe in individual

cases. I regret these losses of stock and crops, but these have to be accepted as a normal farming risk. No assistance was given in this respect, either following the Highland and Solway flooding last winter, or the flooding in Moray and Nairn in 1956.
I would like, now to say something about horticulture, and to deal, in particular, with the damage to glass-houses, something about which I feel strongly. Of approximately 300 acres of commercial glass in Scotland, 140 acres are in Lanarkshire, which was one of the counties most severely affected by the gales. On 16th January, the senior horticulture inspector of my Department visited a number of holdings in the Clyde Valley area which had been severely damaged, and also obtained more general information about the extent of the damage in the area as a whole.
The West of Scotland Agricultural College, whose advisory area covers the worst hit areas, has surveyed 389 horticultural holdings in its area, covering about 220 acres. Of the total, 4 per cent. is described as completely demolished or very severely damaged, and a further 4½per cent. has damage to glass only. The estimated cost of repairing damage is £200,000.
So far, the 40 applications for grant aid received cover work costing about £50,000. This will be assisted under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and the rate of grant is 38⅓ per cent., including 5 per cent, investment grant. Arrangements for dealing with applications are broadly the same for the Farm Improvement Scheme.
The West College has estimated the loss of existing crops at about £3,800. More important, the potential loss of crops if the damage is not made good in time is estimated at £70,000. Restoration work is thus a matter of considerable urgency.
Much of the damage to glasshouses has been to houses upwards of 30 years old. By and large, recently constructed traditional type houses stood up well. There were, however, a few cases of severe damage to new houses of the Dutch light type. The older type houses suffering severe damage would have a value of not more than £2 to £3 per foot. Replacement,


however, would cost from £7 to £8 per foot. Insurance of glass is not common, because of the high premium, and, in any case, would not help here.
The main purpose of the Horticulture Scheme is, however, to assist the replacement of these old glasshouses, and we shall be using it for its intended purpose; but we can also use the Scheme to replace new glass destroyed by the gale. There are general conditions under this Scheme but we shall interpret these as helpfully and sympathetically as possible.

Mr. John Wells: As the Secretary of State is aware, it is necessary for a glasshouse grower to have four adjusted acres under the scheme to qualify. Can he assure the House that the qualification of four adjusted acres will be forgiven for a small grower in this difficulty?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be flexible in that matter it would be far better for him not to ask me to say something publicly on a matter in respect of which I am bound by Statute. All I can say is that I am limited by Statute but that I shall interpret this as sympathetically as I can.
On forestry, I fully share the concern which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about the windblow damage to Scottish forests. Its extent is formidable. The latest estimate of the volumes blown shows that in the Forestry Commission estates 22 million hoppus feet were blown, while the damage to private woodlands amounted to nearly 16 million feet, making 38 million hoppus feet in all. This represents about 4 per cent. of the standing timber in Scotland before the windblow, and is about equal to 18 months' normal production in Scotland.
It was not easy to arrive at even this rough estimate of the damage. It is even more difficult to identify its component parts and the detailed problems which have to be solved. The problems will have to wait upon identification. The Chairman of the Forestry Commission has reported to me personally on the meeting which he held in Glasgow on 29th January with representatives of the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association and the Home Timber Merchants' Association of Scotland. English organisations

were also represented, because from a marketing point of view they are concerned.
This meeting covered all those who were primarily affected by the wind-blow. There was, I am glad to say, a ready appreciation that co-operation by all parties is essential, and in the absence of a licensing system and quota system it is all the more essential to arrive at effective solutions. It was agreed that the problems of harvesting and marketing the blown timber could best be solved by the private growers, the home trade, and the Commission working in close collaboration.
It was realised that much more information was required before the main problems could be quantified and solutions proposed. It will be appreciated, therefore, that while this work is proceeding it is not really possible to do more than give an interim report.
Decision was taken to set up an action group wih six members—two from the Forestry Commission, two from the timber merchants, and two from the woodland owners. The action group has, in turn, set up small working groups of not more than three people to carry out the work in depth. They will, for example, collect further data by species and size, and the Commission has offered to help the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association with the field work in private woodlands.
It will assess the labour and machinery requirements needed to deal with the windblow and the extent to which normal planned sales of trees outside the blown area should be reduced by voluntary action. Other problems which it will consider will include transport, handling, the capacity of the sawmills to take the increased quantities of logs, and general marketability. I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point about local authority demand.
Until these facts have been assembled only the roughest estimate can be given of the value of the blown timber. Much will depend on the species and location of the timber and the extent of the damage. It is not possible to give a realistic estimate of the total value of the blown timber at present.
The question of the further part that the Forestry Commission can play will


be considered when the action group's report is available. I am satisfied that for the time being active co-operation to deal with this problem, surpassed in forestry terms only by the 1953 windblow when 50–51 million feet were blown—the right hon. Gentleman quoted a lower figure—is proceeding as rapidly as possible.
I have given the House as full an account as I can at this juncture of what the Government have done, are doing, arid intend to do. We are determined to see to it that the grievous damage caused by this disastrous gale is made good as soon as possible.
While we appreciate the extent of the disaster we can be justly proud of the work that has already been done by local authorities, voluntary organisations and—if I may say it under my breath—Government Departments. The work is being pressed forward but, with the best will in the world, it will be many months before it can be completed. What I have tried to achieve is to see that the impetus is kept going and that it grows, and to that extent I am very grateful for the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and will be concerned to hear as many constructive suggestions as are put forward.
I know that they have the wholehearted support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in their efforts, and that they mean to continue them. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is not just a problem of statistics; it is not just a problem of houses, or farms, or stocks and the rest; it is a problem of people —many people to whom life has been very cruel in recent days. Yet one lady who left one of the reception centres said, "Life can be as kind as it is cruel." She was talking of the spirit of aid and help that had been shown by everyone concerned in dealing with the people affected by this emergency.
If we can keep together in this kind of way we shall get over the disaster quickly. It has tremendous implications for our future programme of dealing with Glasgow and the older houses, and the lessons which have been learned, and the dangers implicit in not taking quick action, are present in all our minds. I can only promise the House that I shall do is much as I can to further the work that has started.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am glad that we are having this debate; and on the Floor of the House, because, however important the Scottish Grand Committee may be, a disaster of the magnitude of that which hit Scotland on the night of 14th January is a national disaster for the whole of Britain and well merits discussion in this Chamber. I intend to refer only to the damage caused by the hurricane in Glasgow, although I am well aware that the countryside and other towns also suffered grievously.
The first point which should be cleared up is why there was so much damage endangering life. I am not concerned at the moment with slates being ripped off the roof, which caused only discomfort, even if serious discomfort, because that is not dangerous. What is dangerous, and what caused the loss of four lives in my constituency, is when chimneys fall and gable-ends collapse. What was the reason for this?

Sir M. Galpern: The gale.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is being a little simple. We know that the gale was the basic cause, but was it the gale plus lack of maintenance or the gale plus the method of construction, or was it that, in some parts of the city, the wind blew harder than in others—in other words, a meteorological problem?
I do not want to inject into the debate a party political note—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the agreement of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I hope that they will agree that, although not wishing to do that, we cannot behave like ostriches and bury our heads deeply into the sand, that we must know whether there is any connection between the damage which may endanger life, and which actually caused loss of life in this case, and Acts of Parliament which not only restrict rents but which thereby restrict the money available for private maintenance. That is all that I want to know.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Member realise that one factor which might help to account for the damage, and which he seems to be forgetting, is that many of the tenements which collapsed are over 100 years old and were built before 1860?

Mr. Galbraith: That relates to what I want to know. These tenements may not have been properly maintained. The Secretary of State made a very interesting remark, that there was no discrimination in favour or against the rich or the poor in the way that the damage was caused. All I can say, as a layman going around my constituency, is that this did not seem to be so. There seemed to be a prima facie relationship between dangerous damage and the rent restrictions, because in my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I want the figures and the right hon. Gentleman said that he would give them. I am speaking only as a layman going about his constituency.
It is in the lower part of my constituency, along the Dumbarton Road, that the dangerous damage seems greatest, and as one goes up the hill from the river to the more prosperous parts of the constituency, it becomes less and less, until, among the mansions of Kelvinside, there seems to be no dangerous damage at all.
My conclusions may be wrong, but hope that the Secretary of State will look into this carefully. If he finds a relationship between rent restrictions and damage endangering life, I would urge him strongly to instruct his rent officers to deal with all types of controlled property so that, so far as poor maintenance is to blame for damage endangering life, we may in future, through having money available for higher maintenance, avoid the tragic loss of life which occurred on this occasion.
I pose all this in the nature of a question. I make no party political point, but I want to get at the facts relating to the past so that we can avoid it in future, if it is due to bad maintenance.
Now let me turn to the present and the tremendous problem of repairing the damage—not only the dangerous damage which I have mentioned but that which caused slates to fall off the roof and brought acute discomfort. I also pay a warm tribute to the fine work done so co-operatively by all the agencies involved, public and private. It was a magnificent job of work. I know from constituents who lost relatives as well as property how much they were comforted in their hour of tragedy not only by the practical help brought to them, but

by the feeling that everyone was in this together.
There is no doubt that the initial stage, when first aid was brought to everyone —private occupiers as well as council tenants—was a great success. But the second stage, of carrying out the permanent repairs, is full of almost greater problems. Each day, I get pathetic letters from constituents—I expect other hon. Members do as well—telling how, in spite of these first-aid measures, for which they are most grateful, rain is still coming in, and how they cannot, try how they might, get any workmen to come to put it right.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the work must go on, and I agree, but these letters show that it is not going on. These are not panic letters, either, from constituents unused to dealing with affairs. They come from people of consequence. I even had one from a university lecturer who was at his wits' end because he could not get anyone to take the least interest in the repair of his house. I believe that these letters which I get reflect the true position—that the volume of repairs is quite beyond the capacity of local firms, and that an emergency still exists in spite of the fine work already done.
What is necessary is a consortium of some sort, perhaps making use of some of the larger firms like McAlpine, and led by the S.S.H.A., and that this should concentrate from all over the country, England as well, a team which will get this repair work done as quickly as possible. Nothing else will do the job. In the interests of Scotland, it is far more important to save existing houses from further dilapidation, with plaster deteriorating, ceilings coming down and dry rot taking root, than to build a few more new houses.
The national priority for Scotland at the moment should be preservation and not construction. If the right hon. Gentleman follows this course with energy, as he suggested that he might, and in the process slows down the new building so that repair work can go ahead faster. I assure him that we on this side will make no party political points if, in consequence, the number of new houses being built declines, because at this moment what Scotland needs most is the speedy repair of its existing stock of houses.
The financing of all this work is very complicated, as became clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. There probably should have been a national disaster appeal, and even now it may not be too late to establish one, but it is clear that to set up disaster funds on an ad hoc basis is not satisfactory.
There should be a permanent fund and I organisation in existence to which the public can subscribe at any time, but particularly at the time of a disaster, when their sympathy is likely to be most generous. If the recent storm in Glasgow has stimulated the Government into setting up this sort of machinery on a national scale, some good for the future will at least have come out of the disaster. However, that will not help in the, present crisis.
I am not clear about the Government's financial intentions in this matter. It seems that they intend to give a grant to local authorities to reimburse them and insulate them from the consequences of the storm. If so, it seems that they cannot, in fairness, ignore private occupiers who have suffered equally. Perhaps a way round the difficulty might be that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; to combine repair work with the grants available under the Clean Air Acts, thus killing two birds with one stone.
If, on the other hand, the Government do not intend adequately to help local authorities, and if some of the cost of this repair work falls on the rates, then it should be shown as a special and separate surcharge which should not be levied on private property which has been damaged. If this is not done, private residents will be paying twice over for doing their own repairs and, through the rates, for the repair of council houses.
It is difficult to find a formula for financial help that is fair to everyone, taxpayer and ratepayer alike—the council tenant as well as the private tenant, the insured as well as the uninsured. However, there is no need to hurry over this. It can be gone into in detail and at length later. At this juncture it is not necessary to find a final financial solution to the problem, though I hope that in striking a balance the Government will lean on the side of generosity.
What is necessary now is men, rather than money. The Government have

made finance available by way of a loan and this has been of considerable help, but it is not enough. The problem is so gigantic that it must be tackled like a military operation and on a national scale. I urge the Government to recognise their responsibility to the people of Scotland, who are still suffering, and to attack this problem with the sense of urgency it still undoubtedly requires.

5.3 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: The human misery and widespread havoc caused by the hurricane can be appreciated to the full only by those who lived through it and saw the aftermath. I experienced both. As soon as possible, I went to my constituency, where rest centre accommodation had been provided in church and public halls for about 100 adults and 70 children.
In a situation in which one might reasonable have expected to find chaos, there was complete order. An army of people had already done a great deal to lessen the personal consequences of the disaster. We therefore cannot pay tribute too often to the magnificent, tireless and sometimes dangerous efforts of the members of the local authority services, the voluntary organisations and the general public. After 30 years' membership of Glasgow Corporation, when I surveyed the scene in the Shettleston public hall that evening I felt extremely proud, despite the tragedy I was witnessing. I was proud of the work that was being done by the members of our health and welfare department, the police and firemen, the W.V.S. and the public in general.
Throughout this time there emerged what is so characteristic in times of stress and distress—particularly in times of personal tragedy in Glasgow—the true spirit of the Glaswegian, the warm, human, friendliness and neighbourliness that is so readily, freely and unstintingly shown. This disaster has been rightly labelled by the Leader of the Opposition as a national disaster, and all hon. Members will agree that it should be so labelled. Despite this, and all the praise that has been rightly meted out to all concerned, a tremendous task lies ahead.
Having said that, I must admit that, to my knowledge, there has been what I can only describe as a slight lack of


co-ordination. I will give an example of what I mean. The other day I had to telephone the master of works in Glasgow about chimney heads that had come down or had been removed in a damaged tenement. The rain was still coming in and I was anxious that the tenants in this tenemental property should feel that everything possible was being done to help them. I regret to say that the master of works said that the matter was not one for his department and that I would have to contact the health and welfare department.
A similar situation arose in a block where chimney heads had been brought down and the tenants were without warmth because, apart from conventional fires, they had no other form of heating. When an appeal was made for electric fires, no one was able to help. In the sort of weather that we in Glasgow have recently been experiencing—cold, ice and snow—one would have expected help to be immediately forthcoming. Certainly, someone should have been on hand to advise these people where they could obtain, as a loan if not as a gift, sufficient electric heaters to make them reasonably comfortable.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I had exactly the opposite experience. When I contacted my health and welfare department I was told that the matter had to be transferred to the city engineer's department, which is the master of works' department.

Sir M. Galpern: My hon. Friend's experience may have been different, but it shows the same lack of co-ordination. I accept that these may be little irritations, but to the people who have suffered, and who are still suffering, they loom large, particularly since they expect a measure of co-ordination in these matters among the various departments of the local authority.
I am glad to say that, in this case, a newspaper took up the struggle and appealed to its readers who could spare electric heaters to get in touch with the newspaper, which would arrange for them to be collected and delivered to people who had applied for them. After the immediate problem had been dealt with, and urgent matters sorted out, nig-

gling problems of this sort should not have arisen. There might have been better co-ordination within the local authority.
My right hon. Friend has announced that a central office will deal with financial claims. I hope that, as a result of this debate—and remembering that I am speaking with personal knowledge of Glasgow—a central office will be established within Glasgow Corporation which will prevent one department having to refer people to other departments and that a group of individuals will be on hand to sort out immediately all the difficulties that arise.
I wish to make it clear that I am not being over-critical in this matter, because I appreciate that, faced with this terrible disaster, certain points are bound to be overlooked. Nevertheless, in the case to which I referred—where electric heaters were needed—the question of who would install the necessary electrical circuit arose. I am referring to a poor type of tenement in which special plugs were needed to take the electric fires, the tenants being unable to light coal fires.
I have received a number of very pathetic letters from tenants who are afraid to continue living in their tenemental properties. They believe that in view of the high winds and gales still to come it would be unsafe for them to continue living in houses where visible damage has been done and temporary repairs have been carried out. Yet they have been urged to continue to reside in those properties. I must have had at least 24 letters coming under the heading of a psychological problem.
It would be far too much to say that where the master of works has designated a house as being fit for habitation after temporary repairs, the tenants should return to live there when they are under this constant fear. They say that they are awake all night because they are afraid to go to sleep and, as a result, they are unable to perform their work the following day. I do not know whether or not it is unfair to ask that in these circumstances the Corporation should, at least for a period, provide alternative accommodation for those so psychologically affected.
The loan machinery announced by my right hon. Friend today seems to me not


to indicate a sufficient sense of urgency. If we are to go through all the procedures he mentioned—that a member of one department has first to look at the property, and then another has to say whether it is worth repairing, and another has to see whether the tenants in the property will agree ultimately to defray the loan—it will all take a considerable time and, in the meantime, the water comes cascading through the roof. I should like to be assured that this machinery will not in any way mean that there will be undue delay in starting this urgent work.
There is difficulty in getting an undertaking of the kind that will be necessary if the repairer is to be guaranteed payment. One has to know something about these tenements at first hand to realise the difficulties of the people who occupy them. Some people refuse to sign anything. If one person stands out, and says, "I am signing nothing" have all the other tenants to suffer as a result? I mention this point to show the kind of difficulties that arise, though I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend and the members of his staff will be able to sort out these problems.
This is a national disaster, but are we treating it as a national disaster? I intervened to ask my right hon. Friend whether labour could temporarily be diverted to this work from some of the new house building—and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) spoke to the same effect—and whether we might not make an urgent appeal to local authorities in England to release skilled workers so as to carry out these necessary repairs as expeditiously as possible.
By a coincidence, the results of a survey commissioned two years ago by Glasgow Corporation from Mr. Cullingworth to ascertain the state of housing in the city have been presented in the last couple of days. The report is a very sad commentary on the state of housing generally in Glasgow—not that we were previously wholly unaware of the situation. It reveals that Glasgow has twice as many buildings built between 1891 and 1900 as the national average. It classifies 10,000 houses as being unfit, and gives 6 per cent. of those houses a life of less than five years. It labels 75,000 houses as being sub-

standard and not improveable at reasonable cost.
One has to ask oneself a very direct and fundamental question: if we are to treat this as a national disaster is it worth spending any money on those categories of houses, or should we now say that this is the time to demolish them? There may be some blessing even in such a tragedy as this if it makes us face the unfortunate state of housing generally in our city so that, instead of wasting money—and in many cases it will be wasted money—on trying to patch up houses that should be demolished, we say, "This gives us the opportunity to reassess the whole project of free housing for the people of Glasgow."
I repeat a very serious suggestion to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I made it two years ago, when the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the present Minister of Public Building and Works as a Minister with special responsibility for housing in London. I said that housing conditions in Glasgow warranted a similar appointment.
Many of the problems of which we have heard today, and problems that will arise in the future—because this will probably be a two- or three-year undertaking—require someone specially designated as an additional Minister at the Scottish Office responsible for housing in Scotland, and charged with the specific duty of deciding, in the aftermath of the hurricane, whether to demolish or to patch up, and to see to the cutting of all red tape that is all too prevalent still and which will still further rear its head again. I believe that only by the appointment of someone solely concerned with this aspect shall we be able to deal expeditiously with the unfortunate results of the hurricane and the whole question of our future approach to rehousing people in Glasgow and elsewhere.
Therefore, while I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for all their past efforts, I say that this is a grand opportunity, not to be missed, once and for all to regard Glasgow's housing position as a national disaster and do something really worth while by appointing a special Minister to deal with it.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this is a debate we would rather not have had, but, though one regrets what has occasioned it, I believe, though with qualifications, that this House is the most appropriate place to discuss the disaster.
I want to avoid partisan references, although some of the points I make will inevitably have some measure of partisanship. Anyone who lived through the night of the hurricane, who walked round the streets during the following few days, or who accompanied the Lord Provost on his journeys, could not but be moved by what he saw. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) has said, this is a national disaster which has some of the features of a wartime scene. I pay particular tribute to the voluntary services, especially the Salvation Army, to whom my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made reference.
It seems imperative that we should ask ourselves the questions which were implicit in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). He asked: why did it happen? Both he and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) suggested short-term and longterm solutions. On the question of why did it happen, it has been assumed that this hurricane was a once in a millennia affair, but there are regular periods when 120 m.p.h. winds occur. The wind force four days ago was 92 m.p.h. and the wind force four days before that was 90 m.p.h. In the next six weeks we can expect wind forces of that order to be a regular feature of the West of Scotland weather. In other words, the hurricane seemed to blow wide open the whole policy of political and financial neglect, not only of Glasgow's housing but of Scotland's housing.
We have been talking much too readily as if this will not and cannot happen again. This is the price we pay for our so-called political virtues. We live from crisis to crisis. If we are to be statesmen, we should seek to avoid crises arising. These crises have arisen in the past. In 1927 40 people were killed in a similar storm. In August, 1948—I

make reference only to Scotland—there was severe flooding in Berwickshire and East Lothian and the Government provided £100,000 to help in meeting the cost of the damage. We all remember the 1954 gale which sank the Princess Victoria in the Irish Sea with the loss of 28 lives. These are recurrent phenomena and it is imperative that we address ourselves to the social policy needed to meet them.
In passing, I refer to a local matter. Floods on a smaller scale and without loss of life occurred in Househillwood in December, 1966, to which Glasgow is still paying a tribute of total neglect. There seems to be a curious attitude to housing problems in Scotland. This is one feature of Scottish prejudice which we have seriously to examine.
I am sure that very few hon. Members are not aware that every time one sails up the Clyde one meets the City of Glasgow 20 miles out in that low cloud below which rests the grime and soot of two centuries of the industrial revolution. The red sandstone and grey sandstone buildings are paying the price for at least 70 years of neglect. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) may be right in speaking of a century of neglect.

Mr. Rankin: While accepting that a great deal of the damage was caused by the effect of wind on property and by subsidence, will the hon. Member accept from me that it does not require a wind in Glasgow to blow down the houses? In my constituency because of age alone three tenements have subsided. That has happened in Govan through no other cause than extreme age.

Mr. Wright: I accept that point. I intended to come back to it later, but I take it up now in passing since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston referred to one of the Cullingworth Committee Reports. The Cullingworth Report on "Scottish Housing in 1965" said that the oldest dwellings in Glasgow were
far from being the poorest equipped.… Those built before 1861 had higher amenities than any built since 1918.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Govan has made the point about age of a question of age as of the maintenance property twice. It is not nearly so much of old properties.

Mr. Wright: I think that it has been established that there is a problem of climate in Glasgow. There is a recurrent wind force of high velocity and at this time of the year it seriously handicaps existing private and corporation tenements. It is a tenemental problem. The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right in his reference to a fact which is so little appreciated south of the Border. On the top deck of these houses there are three tons of masonry which in some cases is entirely unused.
I wish to suggest both short-term and long-term remedies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, I found the description by the Secretary of State of the loan bank which he envisaged a trifle ambiguous and uncertain. I understand that there is £500,000 on tap now and, as it were, an unlimited fund beyond that. I am not sure that I am putting this the right way and I should be grateful for correction from the Minister of State, but if this is true a great many owner-occupiers in Glasgow simply cannot afford repairs on the scale which will be needed. It will be absolutely imperative to make plain to them how they can be assisted financially, how they can get that assistance and under what system of repayment, if any, they will receive it. I should think a statement on grant assistance alongside the loan assistance is unavoilable.
A second short-term action seems equally important to dealing with the fundamental problem of insurance cover. If we say that there is to be a grant, and certainly if it is a £75 outright grant, those who have insured in a sense will be the sufferers. One possibility is to say that there should be a grant of, say, £15 to all who have been affected by the hurricane, insured and uninsured alike, because there is in all insurance schemes, a basic £15 which they have to meet themselves. That would go a little way, but obviously it would be only a token of what might be forthcoming.
I come to my third point, and here I become a little more critical. I pay tribute to what the Corporation has done and the wisdom of the Lord Provost in saying that the Corporation must go to the help of private owners of property as well as municipal tenants. But I am very puzzled that the Corporation should be carrying on its policy of destruction

of air raid shelters in the Hyndland and the Hillhead areas, and giving this priority.

Sir M. Galpern: I think that it has already been pointed out that the type of unskilled labour used in demolishing air-raid shelters is not the type suitable for carrying out repairs.

Mr. Wright: I accept that, but if one watches the army in operation, as I did in St. Andrew's Drive, one has seen men working under great difficulty and among them untrained men who were risking their lives. I say this advisedly, because one of my constituents was killed while doing repairs, in addition to those who were killed by the hurricane. Anyone who has lived in a top flat in Glasgow knows that not very well-trained men can be freely and fully used to a greater extent than has been the case so far.
A fourth point, already made by the Leader of the Opposition, but which needs emphasis, is the failure of the weather report service. All of us who commute regularly to London watch this service at home late at night. And it is certainly true that on the Sunday night there was entirely inadequate warning of the hurricane. Yet it was already blowing at gale force and by morning it was 120 m.p.h. A great deal of investigation of this needs to be done.
In terms of short-term remedies, I again stress the use of the Services. The Army was used. The Secretary of State paid tribute to the Army and the T.A. I trust that the Government will remember the value of the T.A. in crises such as this one. I trust that the Government will also remember the rôle which can be played by Civil Defence officers. The H.Q. for this operation is now staffed by Civil Defence officers. Some senior officers in the Armed Forces believe that there is a rôle to be played by the Army in a permanent sense in helping out in civilian crises such as this one. I trust that in their thinking about the rôle of the Armed Services the Government will keep this point in mind.
It is now three weeks after the event and almost anything which is now said sounds inadequate in terms of constructive suggestions for dealing with the events of the 14th and 15th January. The hurricane revealed a whole century of


neglect, as the hon. Member for Govan said.

Mr. Rankin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wright: That neglect arose from many factors, and when I list them the hon. Member will not be so quick to say, "Hear, hear."
Those factors are a steady policy of low rents in Scotland, owners' rates till recently, and a feu duty system, all of which made up a policy of social neglect. This policy of social neglect has been furthered by the present Glasgow Corporation I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Shettleston that a special Minister should be appointed to take charge of housing in Glasgow.
I want to make several major proposals for the long-term to deal with the situation in the West of Scotland, especially since the Secretary of State implied that a survey was about to be carried out. First, I believe that there must be a large-scale programme for the maintenance of older property and financial help for owner-occupiers of tenement flats—the red sandstone, the grey sandstone buildings of the 1880s, the 1890s, and the turn of the century. Glasgow has always been good at destroying its past. I see no reason why, after what happened in the hurricane, we should not begin to appreciate the value to the city, to Corporation tenants as well as to owner-occupiers, of those late Victorian and Edwardian buildings.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we must get rid of chimney stacks in smokeless zones and start on a policy of getting rid of them everywhere, especially in areas which are to become smokeless zones. These tons of masonry can be killer weapons. I have received many letters as I am sure other hon. Members have, expressing the fears people have about what will happen in the next high wind. People are asking whether TV aerials swung by wind will blow more slates off or knock down a chimney head and cause another disaster.
Thirdly, I believe that Glasgow Corporation, whose multi-storey blocks rode this hurricane much better than any other buildings—

Mr. Rankin: Because they are new.

Mr. Wright: People at the top of even those buildings said that the sensation was one of seasickness. However, those buildings rode out the storm.
The hon. Member for Govan says that they are new, but they are suffering from neglect. I remind Scottish Members of Pollockshaws and the mud flats around the river. It is an area of total neglect and an area in which the walls of ground floor flats are peeling. There are conditions of acute discomfort there which hurricanes have nothing to do with.
One reason is that Glasgow Corporation, whilst spending money on rehousing people from the clums—and I salute the Corporation for doing that—is not spending money on the maintenance of the multistory blocks it has erected. It is important to remember that the conditions in some of the multi-story blocks which survived the hurricane are very far from pleasant. This has nothing to do with the hurricane. Remedial action is necessary on the part of the Corporation, which is very mean in the matter of spending money on its maintenance department.
Fourthly, and in the long-term, we cannot consider this problem without bearing in mind the whole rent structure and the rate structure of Glasgow and, looking ahead, of the large regions which are likely to follow it. There are other parallels than those I have mentioned of hurricanes or strong winds in the West of Scotland. An earthquake in Dallas in 1905 led to the creation of the office of city manager. The hon. Member for Shettleston might well have proposed that these big cities, which will become even bigger and in which problems such as these will become even more acute, not less acute, will have to have city managers responsible to the electorate. I cite the present Town Clerk of Glasgow as an example of someone who could be a very efficient city manager. We must think in managerial terms when trying to cope with problems of this magnitude.
Finally, we must somehow recruit more slaters, plasterers and other workers to cope not just with this problem, but with the fact that Glasgow has over 80.000 people on its housing waiting list. Glasgow is a city which is going through a vast social revolution. The present small labour force cannot cope with these problems.
I should appreciate it if either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give me answers to these points in due course.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We have now heard three speeches from Members from Glasgow, with a series of interjections from another hon. Member which have now totted up to a speech in itself. After the two Front Bench speeches, the debate has developed more or less into one of criticism of Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. Hannan: Most unjustified, too.

Mr. Steele: It is not for me to defend Glasgow Corporation. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) consisted of an allegation of lack of co-ordination. I have had a long experience of Glasgow Corporation. I know that the lack of co-ordination between the various departments is not new. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will inform the Corporation of this criticism.

Mr. Hannan: I hope that that expression of opinion will not be taken by the Corporation to be the opinion accepted by other hon. Members.

Mr. Steele: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I was referring to what has happened in the debate so far in contributions from Glasgow Members.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) reminds me of the story of the psychiatrist and the young man. I will not go into details. No matter what subject is under debate the hon. Gentleman always sees the problem existing because of the operation of rent restriction and low rents. I think that some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will recognise the story from that allusion.
The publicity given to the damage which took place in Glasgow and Greenock has given a clear indication of all that happened there, but there is not, I think, a full realisation of what happened elsewhere. I am glad, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition, who made a very good speech today, drew attention to the extent of damage outside those two areas. It so happened that, on the Monday afternoon, after the storm, I

had to travel from Lesmahagow, where I live, to Helensburgh, and my journey took me down through the central part of Lanarkshire, through Glasgow, down through Dunbarton to Helensburgh. It gave me some idea of the extent of the damage. All along the road there were slates, fallen bricks, sheets of corrugated iron, wooden garages which had been blown across the road, and fallen trees. The number of them had to be seen to be believed.
The reason for my journey to Helens-burgh was to attend my annual meeting with the West Dunbartonshire branch of the National Farmers' Union. Hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that only two farmers turned up. It was the shortest meeting I have ever had with the West Dunbartonshire branch. The reason was obvious. In West Dunbartonshire not one farm has escaped damage. The cost for some farmers is in the region of £3,000. They very much appreciate what the Government have said about using the Farm Improvement Scheme, but, as has been pointed out already, it does not cover many of the repairs which will be necessary, and neither does it take into account the loss in respect of crops. It has been put to me that a loan scheme should be made available to enable farmers to deal with their problems.
After my visit on the Monday, I returned on the Friday and Saturday, and I discussed with a number of people affected exactly what had happened. It was quite clear that many had had a night of terror. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston when he says that a good many people have no desire—indeed, they will not do it—to go back to the houses which they occupied before.
The local authorities face an enormous task. It is right to pay a tribute to all the local authorities and the voluntary organisations for the vigorous way in which they tackled the job on the Monday and following days. From my contacts with local authority officials and others, I know that they are grateful for the Government's work in this connection. They were especially glad in Dumbarton to have a visit from Lord Hughes, who saw for himself what had happened. They appreciate also the Government's initiative in getting tarpaulins and ropes


speedily delivered into the area to make temporary repairs possible.
There are two separate problems here. There is the question of first aid, what had to be done for the homeless, and the immediate future of those concerned. As I say, this problem has been tackled very well, and all concerned are to be congratulated on what they did. There is then the problem of permanent reinstatement of people's homes. This is more difficult, and it is here that troubles are bound to arise.
In the landward area of Dunbarton, for the local authority houses, the houses of the new town corporation and of the Scottish Special Housing Association and for private houses, the estimated cost is about £340,000. In Dumbarton Burgh it is about £130,000. In Helensburgh and Cove and Kilcreggan, the full effects have not vet been estimated, but there has been severe damage in the small Burgh of Cove and Kilcreggan, This small burgh, on the outermost edge of the peninsula, is not in a position to face the cost of the damage there.
Forty-nine schools were severely damaged, and many had to be closed. Much industrial property also was damaged. Two churches were completely destroyed. In one case, I think, a problem has been solved for the presbytery, because there has been an effort for some time to get the churches to amalgamate. The other one, however, presents a different and very difficult problem. It was a new church, built on the Bellsmyre housing estate. As well as being the church, it was the social community centre for the whole area. That church has been completely destroyed. I am not sure what assistance the Government will give. My right hon. Friend did not mention it today, and I have as yet no idea of what is likely to happen. But something must be done quickly. There must be a building scheme at once because, as I have explained, it was not merely a church but was the centre for community activities.
After the first-aid work, we face the long and arduous task of permanent repair. The problem here is manpower. It is not easy to get people trained to go on a roof. I tell the House frankly that I can go up as far as the gutter of a house, but I do not want to be asked to go further. I admire men who are

able to wander about on a roof just as though they were walking about on the ground. But I recognise the danger. It is not a job which everyone can tackle.
Dumbarton Town Council recognises that this work is beyond the capacity of the local authority workmen and the firms in the area. It has been able to secure the services of a firm from Dumfriesshire, which has brought its men to Dumbarton to help. This firm has gone further and engaged men from Inverness to come down to Dumbarton in order to get the work done. Perhaps other local authorities are doing the same. It is urgent that whatever steps are necessary shall be taken to release men for this work.
I was very much interested to visit one house in Dunbarton where repairs were being carried out and speak to one of the tradesmen about how the job was going. He said, "I have not got time to talk to you. I want to get on with the job." I learned that he was working with the Admiralty in Faslane, had got leave to work temporarily with the firm, and was engaged in repairs to his own house, so I could understand his urgency. No doubt there are other bodies and firms that could make men available, and I hope and trust that this is done.
The 64,000-dollar question is: who is to pay? This will be the main argument today, if any takes place. On Dunbarton County Council's present estimate of repairs, at least 10d. or 1s. in the £would go on the rates, and I am confident that it has not yet been able to make a full estimate. That estimate is for local authority housing alone, and with the cost of education, police, clearance of roads and everything else concerned, it adds up to a substantial sum. Here, I agree to some extent with the hon. Member for Hill-head. If local ratepayers are to be asked to make such a contribution, we cannot possibly penalise owner-occupiers in payment of that kind of rate for the repair of local authority houses without doing something at the same time for the owner-occupiers who have themselves suffered damage. That is a fair proposition.
I was encouraged to some extent by my right hon. Friend's statement that he hoped that the contribution to be made would ensure that there was no really great hardship as a rate burden on the local authorities, but we shall have to


wait and see exactly what happens. I appreciate that the whole problem will mean great difficulties. There are quite a number of owner-occupiers who are, unfortunately, not insured as they should be for storm damage, and the cost of repairs will be greater than they can afford.
Overall, there are two lessons which we should learn from this tragedy. I do not refer to the old property in Glasgow, with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) dealt so effectively, because Glasgow is a special problem by itself. There is nothing like it in the whole of Scotland, and the pity is that some of the difficulties there were not dealt with many years ago.
My experience in the country was that it seemed to be the post-war local authority house that suffered the most damage. In one particular scheme I notice that there was a certain design of house on which all the chimneys came down. This design was not just in one area, but was dotted all over the scheme. In the county, there was another type of house—and only that type—that had the roof blown off. From what I have seen it seems that the post-war local authority houses suffered most of the severe damage, as compared with privately-owned houses, and one wonders whether the local authorities have suffered particularly badly. I should like to know if an examination will be made to see whether there were reduced standards in local authority houses because of the necessity to keep within central authority cost figures. I hope and trust that that question will be examined.
Tributes have been rightly paid to the rôle played by the Civil Defence workers and, in Dunbartonshire particularly, those associated with the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory. This was a voluntary effort, and we must pay tribute to voluntary effort. Despite my keenness, appreciation and work for the Welfare State, I have never hesitated to suggest or help the creation of more and more voluntary efforts. They are always necessary. My local authority is very much appreciative of the way they work in Dunbarton. When one thinks that the voluntary effort in Sicily recently was dissipated to some extent because of a lack of central direction one realises how fortunate we are to have a Civil Defence voluntary organisation with men and

women trained for emergencies of this kind. When this sort of thing happens, they can do a very effective job, not only by themselves but by directing the work of many others who are anxious and willing to help.
My local authority has asked me to say that it hopes that at this stage the Government will consult with the local authorities on the Civil Defence units and voluntary associations which it is proposed shall be disbanded to see if something can be done at least to maintain some part of the organisation, to enable us to make sure that if a future tragedy of this kind occurs we shall have well-trained, efficient people to help us deal with it.

5.58 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The whole House is very glad to have this opportunity of discussing a very distressing and, we hope, unique situation. It is of some consolation to those who have suffered so much and of some hope to them that we are all trying today to find ways and means of alleviating the anxiety which still remains with so many people.
Like the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), on 15th January, having travelled overnight to London, I was called back because of the results of the hurricane. I saw, between landing in Renfrew and where I live in Stirlingshire, a very wide cross-section of the damage, and I was utterly appalled at the extent in my constituency, in Glasgow, and around my home.
It is worth considering the cost incurred in those areas outwith Glasgow where the damage has been less but where the incidence of cost upon a comparatively small population is very heavy. Therefore, I should like to cite the burghs in my constituency, in Barr-head, where the modest figure of perhaps £20,000 worth of damage has been done, and in Renfrew, where perhaps £50,000 worth has been done. That damage is almost equally divided between private and public property, so far as is known at present.
If the cost of this damage is to fall upon the ratepayers it would amount to an increase in rates of approximately 10d. in the £. This seems to be an imposition greater than the community can bear,


and a double imposition for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has explained. It is a pointer to the fact that it would be insufficient to cover only one section of the community through any grant which may be envisaged.
The County of Renfrew has suffered damage amounting to £335,000 to private property, and damage to local authority property of something like £131,000. This clearly reflects the pattern for the county, and it is mainly on an extensive county basis. Again, the rate-borne effect of this would be greater than that which the community could be expected to bear. There is one special case which I would like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State, because it suggests a pattern which may be repeated throughout Scotland and which is very serious indeed.
On the outskirts of Renfrew, the Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, which is very dear to the hearts of many people, has re-erected a sectional building which it had acquired on the closing of Renfrew airfield. It is not possible to insure such a building until it is erected. It was within a fortnight of being completed and overnight it was flattened. Here we have a voluntary society erecting a building with voluntary contributions, at a cost of £1,000. It is now flat and uninsured. There may be other institutions in similar circumstances, and, if so, it points to the necessity of considering this matter very widely when contemplating compensation.
I join in the praise for the good work which local authorities have done, particularly county and borough officials. They have rightly shown a complete lack of discrimination in the repair work. Repairs were done where needed. This was right and I hope that we shall follow this policy when we finally evolve a compensation plan.
A large number of people have asked me why people were not insured. There is a very distinct line to be drawn here and it is illustrated in the case of private housing as compared with local authority housing. The latter are not insured. It is clearly not a viable proposition for a local authority to insure its own houses. The same applies in some privately owned—

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the hon. Lady correct in what she has said about local authority houses not being insured? Most local authority housing with which I have come into contact is insured, at least for fire, and very often for storm damage.

Miss Harvie Anderson: As I understand, the subject under discussion is storm damage. Of course, people are insured for fire damage. They would be very foolish if they were not, but this is completely different from the insurance requirements for storm damage.
No doubt the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) will be able to give us specific instances where local authorities insure their housing against storm damage. The point is that the householder should be insured, and it is to be hoped that many are. I was glad to hear the suggestion, which I had intended to make, that the first £15, which is not normally carried on an insurance policy, be paid by the State, to all those who have suffered damage.
The taxpayer's position clearly enters into this. Someone asked why should the taxpayer pay for an act of God, which is the point at which insurance companies no longer cover. I do not think that it is reasonable to suppose that the taxpayer should give full compensation to the person who has suffered, but I do think it reasonable that we should ensure that no man be put out of either home or business. That seems to make very considerable demands upon the State.
There is yet another anomaly. I have heard of a case, of which I have no personal knowledge, concerning a fairly old house standing in perhaps an acre of ground. There are 40 trees there which were blown down. I was told that there is an old lady living in the property. The trees are not insured. This is the kind of case that falls between any plans which the Secretary of State or anyone else has been able to think up. It leads me to believe that, between the case of the mentally handicapped children's building and this, there is a wide variety of cases which are unlikely to be covered by any pattern that can be devised and for which special provision ought to be made.
I want now to deal with the position in the countryside. It is quite true that the publicity given to Glasgow was earned, because this great city suffered so much,


and because the total volume of suffering was infinitely greater than in any other part of Scotland. That does not mean that the countryside escaped lightly, as I know very well from the area in which I live.
I want to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the kind of difficulty that arises when there is a failure of power for a period of eight to 11 days. This happened in my constituency, and in my home area. Because of the failure, many small farmers were unable to use bulk milk containers which they had gone to great expense in installing. The contents of these containers were entirely destroyed by the failure, at a considerable loss to the farmers.
There are, therefore, a multitude of side effects in the countryside falling into this category of which I will give two instances if I have time. The average farmer has carried a loss of £2,000 to £4,000. This is the case in Stirling, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The average loss for a farmer in that area is just on £2,000. This is obviously constituted in a variety of ways. It is clear that some farms may have suffered £1,000 worth of damage and that others may have suffered £4,000 worth. It is not difficult to lose £4,000 worth of property in this area, because the cost of one hay sled exceeds that figure.
I now turn to the point which I raised in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech. I am glad that reference has been made to a form which has been sent out because until today it has been very difficult for country people to know how to apply for a grant. It will, therefore, be helpful when publicity is given to the right hon. Gentleman's comment on this matter.
I have in my hand a form from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. It is not very reassuring. It says:
I thank you for your telephone call on"—
such and such a date—
and note with regret that you have suffered storm damage to your property as a result of the recent gales. The restoration works may"—
and I ask hon. Members to note the word "may"—
be assisted under the Farm Improvement Grant (a) if the cost is not less than £100, (b) if it is not fully met by insurance payment, and"—

this is the important part—
(c) all other conditions of the scheme are met".
This is where the difficulty arises.
In the implementation of the scheme, buildings for which the farm improvement is relevant must be brought up to a very high standard indeed. Many small farmers have lost buildings which were not up to that standard, but, nevertheless, they were of great value on the farm. A common example in Central Scotland, where the storm damage struck is a small dairy farm on which dairying has become unprofitable and the byre has been translated into a cattle reed. This is the sort of building which would not qualify for a farm improvement grant. It is the sort of building which has suffered particular damage, and it seems to me doubtful whether it will qualify under the proposed scheme. I do not want to press the Secretary of State too strongly on this, because I hope that in his Department, without too many public pronouncements, there may be a charity of vision which will be very acceptable in the areas most concerned.
Even if an applicant is fortunate enough to qualify for the 30 per cent. and has suffered £2,000 worth of damage, the difference is quite great and quite a large sum for an individual to find. If, on the other hand, the qualifications are not fully met and entitle the applicant to only 15 per cent.—and this is especially true of fencing—difficulty can arise. I hesitate to refer to my own experience, but on the Friday night I finished a fence at a cost of £475 with the Secretary of State's valuable financial assistance. I have to re-erect the fence. I assure hon. Members that I do not have £475 with which to do it. These are the sort of practical considerations which must be borne in mind if we are to make the Farm Improvement Scheme the basis of compensation in the countryside.
I do not wish to detain the House, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I know that others will say more effectively than I could that which must be said about the timber position. However, I should like to make two points. The quantity of hardwood which has been blown greatly exceeds proportionately the percentage of hardwood which has


been blown in any storm during this century. This is a real problem. The hardwood timber which has been blown in this case is undoubtedly of very high quality. Most of us who have lost 150year-old or 200-year-old trees have lost trees which we should not have dreamt of cutting down. There is on the market, therefore, some very good timber of the hardwood type.
I hope that where felling licences have been given—I can think of a major one which is effective in this field—some assistance will be provided by restriction, because this is a separate problem from the very much more extensive problem of the commercial woodlands. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we have the terrible problem of commercial woodlands providing both the capital and the income to sustain comparatively small units. It is through this aspect of their endeavour that they are viable.
Secondly, I sometimes wonder whether people realise the appalling on-cost of transporting timber when it has to go anywhere further than the nearest sawmill. It is clear that it will have to go considerably further in this case. I know of a quotation of £78 to transport one root three miles. This raises a point which is common to town and country. Trees which have blown across roadways, irrespective of whether they are "authority" or "private" trees, have in some instances been cleared by what I might call the excellent organisation set up for the purpose. But it is not clear who will pay the bill.
The Army cleared some trees, the local authority has cleared some trees and private enterprise in various forms has cleared some trees from the roadways. It is plain that nobody will be sent a bill for paying the Army for doing this. It is a lot less clear who will pay the bill if other people have cleared trees. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will be glad to receive the very minor bills in this respect.
I close by emphasising the appalling problem presented to the whole of Central Scotland and the enormous difficulties which many of our constituents face. I ask the Secretary of State to extend to them that charity of which I know he is

capable and to encourage his Department to do the same.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I will not, of course, quarrel with the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). It was, as her speeches normally are, full of good common sense, and all of us would endorse the last two or three sentences. As for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, it was, if I may say so without seeming to he patronising, of a very high quality, and not critical in the bitter sense, though, of course, it had some reasonable propositions to make. The only thing about his visit to Glasgow that I found disconcerting was the company he found himself in, with three Members for Glasgow seats.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) referred particularly to the shortcomings of Glasgow Corporation. Much of what he said—if I may say so, though it is not for me to rule—seemed to me a little away from the purpose of the debate, although when things of that character are said, I am sorry, but one must use a little of one's time to reply to some of the political points. The Opposition in 1957 and 1958 had every opportunity to put right the matters about which the hon. Member for Pollok complained. It was they who introduced the Rent Act and they who introduced the Valuation and Rating Act following the Sorn Report. We said at the time that it would be of no use to deal with the problem.
Moreover, the hon. Gentleman seemed critical of the Corporation, because he objected to its not spending sufficient on the maintenance of houses, although he rather saluted the Corporation for spending money on building houses. This brings us back to the old problem of priorities. It is for the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind, in the circumstances of shortage of housing, in Glasgow particularly, and the added difficulties of the storm, whether more resources should be spent on maintenance or whether we should get on with the principal job of building houses. I should say in passing that there is a statutory amount which the local authorities have to set aside for the maintenance of houses. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not think it


quite sufficient. That is another matter, but at least local authorities have to comply with this statutory requirement.
I could hardly refrain from a facetious remark when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith)—I think it was he—said that flying slates are not dangerous. As someone who has had some experience, my advice to him is that if he sees flying slates coming at about neck level he had better duck, and duck quickly.
This brings me, perhaps rather laboriously, to what seems to me the principal problem with which the Secretary of State and the local authorities are confronted in an emergency of this character. Some of the leader writers in the newspapers and the columnists who write diatribes and criticisms of the Government—any Government—and about the slew progress in construction and repair had better think again, because we can place as much money as we like at the disposal of the local authorities but the thing which determines the rate of progress in restoring the position is the skilled manpower which we have to go on roofs. If some of the leader writers and columnists were able to construct roofs of slates as quickly as they can construct sentences then the problem would be very much easier to solve.
There are, I understand, in the City of Glasgow only about 1,200 to 1,300 slaters. We are limited by their pace and their degree of productivity. It is very much to be regretted that there are not more of them, and, of course, we could wish that in the past, through training courses and so forth, we could have had more of our young people taking up appreticeship courses for such a dangerous and laborious job.
There was one good thing which one of he Sunday newspapers did; it was one of those which were most critical of the Government; and the only good thing it did that Sunday was to produce a front page picture of two men on a tenement root. It was obvious to me, as one who has been on roofs—during the blitz, during my time in the Fire Service—and who, therefore, knows the risks which are run and the dangers of swinging masonry, that they were running a great risk. Indeed, there were one or two fatalities. So when the newspapers are

being critical of the situation let them, let all of us, remember the debt which we owe to the men who are doing the job which really matters.
A good part of my speech was made for me by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) —not the—if I may use the adjective—pettifogging minor criticisms about the administration by Glasgow local authority but about the need for a new look at the purposes of the Corporation and its job in trying to comply with the Cullingworth Report. In the first place, it seems to me that the thing which my right hon. Friend and the local authorities have to do is to use all the powers they have, or to take extra powers, to deal with empty houses in the City of Glasgow—and there were empty houses even before the gales, and they were long empty, for some reasons best known to those who are responsible for administering them. Whether such action has already been taken, I know not, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to get in touch with Glasgow, or to receive the local authorities if they approach him, to see to it that early action is taken.
Next is the need for classification of the various tenements. I know that Glasgow Corporation, perhaps beyond what many others have done, has been very efficient in doing just this job; that is to say, it knows at this moment the properties which normally would have been due for razing to the ground, whose lifetime is now some five or ten years. One of the problems will be whether my right hon. Friend should even entertain some of the public resources which have been mentioned going to what are essentially slum landlords. Those of us who have been troubled with this problem over the years in Glasgow know the problem of the absentee landlords and abandoned buildings. It would not surprise me if some of the owners should suddenly emerge from their hiding places when there is the public purse to be dipped into. I ask my right hon. Friend to make quite sure that the public moneys will not be abused in that respect.
Another big problem, which has been mentioned already, though I make no apology for coming back to it, is the multiply-owned tenement housing, for which, because of the added damage of the storm, the insurance companies now


and in the future are not likely to accept the risk. In the disbursement of some financial help I would hope that the people in those houses in their extremity may receive some degree of priority.
That is another category. I have already mentioned abandoned buildings. There are some 60 buildings of this type in Glasgow and workmen will not go into them because of the danger arising from loose electric cable ends, gas pipe ends, rotting timber, and rotting floors through which they are likely to fall in a moment. These buildings certainly, and others with a short duration of life, whose conditions has been exacerbated by the storm, must, I think, be brought to the ground. I should like my right hon. Friend to give the assurance, if he will, that the pace of demolition of these houses, and his excellent record of slum clearance, will be maintained.
I need hardly remind my right hon. Friend that, according to the Culling-worth Report, Glasgow Corporation assessed that of its total housing stock in 1966 of 326,000, 10,000 were classified as unfit and 49,000 were sub-standard but improvable at reasonable cost. In other words, 41 per cent. of its total housing stock was below standard:
The Report went on to say:
The problem, especially in Glasgow, is of such huge dimensions as to place it beyond the resources of any single authority, even though it be the largest authority in the country.
That position has been aggravated by the recent storm and gales, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue, as he hinted that he must, to do all that he can to ensure that the impetus in improving housing conditions is maintained. We hope that he will approach the Cabinet to see to it that Glasgow's problem is recognised in the fashion that the Cullingworth Report suggested.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head mentioned another important aspect in the course of his speech, and perhaps I ought to say that I did not disagree with everything that he said. To put it in a positive way, apropos the new Cullingworth Report, a couple of days ago the editorial in the Scotsman had this to say:
It also found, however, that 35 per cent. of dwellings without a bath, 23 per cent. Of

those without an internal water closet and 37 per cent. of those not having a full hot water system have an assessed life of 30 years or more. From the standpoint of the community, would it not be better to try to bring these houses up to standard rather than let them deteriorate further?
Certainly I agree with that, and I hope that something will be done to maintain this kind of property, if necessary by asking for reasonable rents. This is further to a point which was made some weeks ago in an Adjurnment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). People are leaving the city and going to live elsewhere. They seem happy to pay higher rents to other local authorities than they are prepared to pay to Glasgow, and that is quite wrong.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: It was I who made the point.

Mr. Hannan: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I thought that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that the damage has been particularly bad in the City of Glasgow, and he has referred to the scheme which has been worked out. From what we heard earlier about the proposals, I think we should take this opportunity to congratulate both sides of the House who, through the usual channels, have arranged today's debate. In addition, our congratulations should be extended to my right hon. Friend and his Ministers and the officials in his Department, who have served Scotland and its local authorities well. The proposals which my right hon. Friend has made today will go a long way to assuage and calm some of the more serious doubts and carping criticisms which have been expressed.
I have referred to the two kinds of resources necessary, the physical and the financial resources. However, it is the physical resources which will put right the damage much quicker than finance. It is true that those who do it will want some reassurance, but, the financial arrangements having been made, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to do something to recruit more labour. The point has been made already by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,


Shettleston. Is it not true that some skilled labour of this character has been coming up from the North of England to the Dumfries area? That is the sort of help that we need.
I come now to insurance. I do not intend to give the House a recital of some of my own personal history, but I served in the insurance world for some years, and I know the problem of completing application forms, having claims assessed, arid the rest of it. No doubt knowing of my past associations, the British Insurance Association has written to me making a number of points which reinforce my right hon. Friend's statements about the administration of these moneys. If what I lave to say is not known to him, I hope that some inquiries will follow. I have not had any complaints from my constituents in this matter, but I think that the general public ought to know the position. and the letter covers some of the points which hon. Members have raised.
The British Insurance Association takes in all insurance companies except Lloyds, and, of course, Lloyds is concerned with rather special kinds of insurance. However, the normal term "storm, tempest or flood" covers what has happened.
The letter says that insurance companies are working overtime and doing all that they can to settle the thousands of claims as quickly as they come into their offices. In addition, the Regional Committee for Scotland is in close touch with the Development Department of the Scottish Office and helping to administer the Glasgow Relief Scheme, backed by the Government, in three ways.
First, to get the scheme off the ground, they have agreed that the proceeds of claims may be assigned to the Corporation. As I understand it, claims will go on being assessed but, in the meantime, it the Government have paid out moneys, settlements from the insurance companies will go to the Corporation in lieu of the sums that have been spent. Second, the insurance companies are forgoing their rights to approve estimates for repairs to insured property in many cases. To take the example of car damage, normally an insurance company would want an estimate before the car went to a repairer. In the case of houses, the insur-

ance companies are prepared to forgo that. I hope that that statement is right. If it is, it is a big stride forward. Third, the insurance companies are co-operating over the procedure for the estimation of the cost of roof repairs and the prompt payment of the repairer which is no less important because it will encourage them to carry on with their work.
I want to conclude by referring once again to the work done by the Government through my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. I know that the Lord Provost of Glasgow has issued a Press statement congratulating the Government and expressing the Corporation's great happiness that matters have been considered so quickly. The presence of my right hon. Friend's officers on the ground has greatly facilitated matters. For the first time, the strained relations between Glasgow Corporation and the Glasgow Property Owners' Association have improved somewhat. The President of the Property Owners' Association has publicly expressed his deep appreciation of the way that Glasgow Corporation has handled the matter. This is somewhat in contradistinction to the outside carping criticisms which have appeared in newspaper columns. I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the people and Corporation of Glasgow to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his officers.

6.40 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: My first plea to the Secretary of State for Scotland is to resolve the uncertainty of many people in various categories. As we sit here today many people are hanging on the decisions which will be made in any statement at the end of this debate.
My second plea is for a direct grant system. Priorities financed by the Government are always painful, and we all have our different views on these questions. Without going into matters too deeply, might I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider a direct grant method for solving at least part of the problem. Many members of the public do not have exact ideas on what the words "advance funds" and "financial help" really mean. There are many people who quite sincerely believed that the first instalment that has been publicised was simply a payment on account of a grant.
They are upset to know that it was a payment on account of some other arrangement.
I have made two pleas in rapid succession. I would now refer the right hon. Gentleman to the meeting which was attended inter aliaby the Provost of Hamilton, and representatives of many other authorities in the list of 120. It was his genuine understanding that this was not a loan. He said that he would be disappointed if he thought this was to be a loan. The Burgh of Hamilton was fortunate in not suffering as much as some other places. The total loss for Hamilton was given at the first meeting as something over £98,000. It is now about £107,000. Like many other places, I do not suppose that this will be the final figure.
The Burgh of Hamilton was able to take the exhortation to heart—because it was not such a massive problem—to attend speedily to all the cases in its area where people were needing houses repaired, checked, verified and reassurances given. They were able to rehouse. They were fortunate, because the problems in the Burgh of Hamilton were not as grave as in the City of Glasgow, which has been so badly struck. In the remaining parts of my constituency, however, there are many and varied problems. In almost every category that we have heard mentioned today, there has been somebody suffering the same kind of thing in my constituency.
I should like to ask one or two specific questions. First, will the Government consider putting a ceiling on the amount which will go on the rates? It is hard to suggest what the ceiling should be, but could it be, for example, said to be well under 6d.?
Secondly, will the Government arrange for the payment of the cost of the damage in such a way that local authorities do not have to borrow money over a long number of years. One estimate which was sent to me was that in Stirling 1s. on the rate for more than 10 years would be necessary to repair the damage there. I have not been able to get an estimate for Hamilton, but that is the kind of exercise that many authorities will be going through and working out to send to the Minister.
Like many others, I feel I must dabble in insurance for a minute or two. I would urge that special consideration be given to those with houses too old for insurance and those with houses on which insurance could not be obtained at normal rates. The average in Scotland will be higher than elsewhere. In some agricultural areas it is not normal to have insurance at all. There are certain types of policy which contain the word "comprehensive", but where specific price limits are imposed, and storm and tempest damage excluded. I have asked the Glasgow Bar Association member dealing with property damage to give me a list of the types of damage their clients have encountered which are not insurable and the type of insurance claims they have met which I will then send on. I thought such a list might be of assistance. The variety, as we have heard during the debate, is such that human ingenuity can hardly deduce all the permutations. We will have to wait before all the types of loss are revealed.
To take an example, a chimney-head falling on a car or on a neighbour's glasshouse is not an insurable risk. There are dozens of others, but I will not weary the House
The urgency in the non-insured cases is where the question of uncertainty comes in. Many of these people are living in modest houses, some of the type mentioned costing £200. but others costing £1,000 and £1,500. Many of the people in these houses are old-age pensioners, widows or deserted wives. Others have very low incomes and husbands who cannot get work
I have made a plea for a grant. If this is ruled out and we are to have a loan on the understanding that the private owner will repay it, I presume all those categories of person would be considered very carefully. As is well known, these people are very worried because they are uncertain. They do not know how they would be able to repay the money to the local authorities. There are many people in Scotland who want to pay their due, whereas if the Government were to say that this is a grant which will be made proportionate to individual circumstances in all cases of loss they might feel that was a different situation. There are many people who can ill-afford to


have the repairs done, but, if they are done I am sure that they will insist on paying unless there is a grant.
We have heard about tradesmen. I should like to make a positive suggestion which has not been mentioned before. It is the case that some local authorities recruited additional tradesmen who were engaged on contracting work involving penalty clauses. By the good offices of certain local authorities some big firms have agreed to waive the penalty clauses for a certain number of weeks to release these tradesmen. I appreciate that this only needs legislation, which would take time, but a personal appeal by the Secretary of State for Scotland to firms with tradesmen of the appropriate degree of skill, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned, might produce extra tradesmen. This may have been considered, but it has not been mentioned. I do not know how many tradesmen that would release, but I think it would release a great number in Scotland alone. If we were sill short we could, if necessary, go to England. If this were done, the waiting time for all this work to be completed could be cut down from the two-year period, which has been mentioned, to something more acceptable to us all.
Concerning the makeshift arrangements for temporary housing, many people are eagerly waiting to know into which category they fall. Are they to be rehoused? The right hon. Gentleman will know better than I. If a statement could be made about what will happen to those living in temporary accommodation I am sure it would help. From my window I can see a tarpaulin on the tenement opposite. Every time there is a wind, part of the tarpaulin blows aside and exposes the roof yet again.
There are many people who are not even sure if, by leaving their property to go to relatives, they are in some way losing entitlement. It may be they should not worry. However, could a statement be made which would put their minds at rest? We all get pathetic letters. I suggest that everyone who reasonably apprehends that his roof is unsafe—even where there may be nothing to see, but he fears this—should have an entitlement to a safety checking. This may come back to the shortage of skilled men to carry out the check, but if people felt

they had an entitlement to a check, even if it meant waiting for a couple of weeks to get it, it would put a great deal of the fear and distress out of the minds of some of these people who have sent us these pathetic letters. I have received letters from people with young children. They say that they are afraid to put their young children into this, or that room, particularly if they live in the top flat of a house.
One or two categories of the business world have been mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a glasshouse owner in Larkhall, who has suffered such extensive damage that he has virtually been put out of business. A percentage grant will be a step forward, but it will not be sufficient in his case. Three shops and a pub in my constituency suffered considerable damage and are closed. The publican, in particular, has reached the age at which he cannot start again. It means that he will be forced to retire sooner than he intended. One tenant, thinking that he had a certain amount of security, spent a lot of money on his shop. Perhaps he should not have clone, but he did, and now has no premises. There are two small shopkeepers who also find themselves in the predicament of having no shop. The burgh council is, of course, trying to assist, but naturally there are difficulties.
Insurance does not cover consequential loss, and if there is a direct grant some proportion of it should be allotted for consequential loss. I do not accept the solution of a straight £15 per head grant. Some people agree to pay the first £15 of damage when they take out an insurance policy, and so anomalies will arise if lump-sum payments of £15 are made. One person may suffer damage amounting to £5, while the person next door may suffer £200 worth of damage. To pay £5 to one, and £15 to the other, will not get us very much further forward, and I therefore suggest that a grant should be made to these people. The £15 flat rate suggestion is tempting because it would be easy to administer, but I prefer the proposal for a grant on a proportion of loss.
In whatever scheme is put forward, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the principle of latent damage. In other words, if an expert employed by, say, the local authority can show that


the structure of a house was weakened by the storm, and if, in six months' time, or perhaps even a year hence, it collapses or is damaged, the owner should be included in the help offered.
I conclude by pleading with the Government not to cut down on the number of houses to be built in Scotland. We were facing a national emergency, of housing in Scotland before the storm hit us. Because of this storm we suffer a double disaster. I plead that the Government reconsider their plans.
Glaswegians are generous people, and so are the people in the West of Scotland. They are always prepared to help others through all kinds of situations when an appeal is made to them. Would it be possible to appeal to the generosity of the whole of Britain? I am sure that many people would like to help those who suffered because of this storm. We must accept, however, that whatever help is provided there will still be pockets of sufferers. I ask the Government to be generous, and to be definitive. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who does not think that a scheme should be introduced quickly. I ask the Government to be definitive, and to be definitive, and to be generous, and to give others a chance to be generous, too, in setting up a disaster fund.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I listened to Mr. Speaker enjoining us to be brief. I agree with much of what has been said in this debate, and particularly with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. When he spoke about the restoration of towns and cities, I thought that it was the best speech I have heard him make in the House.
Those who came through this hurricane and who lived in Glasgow during the war must have been impressed by the terror which was about on that night. During the war, when the air-raid sirens went few people bothered until the blitz hit Clydebank, and then everybody lived in fear when the sirens went.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) referred to the speech I made a few weeks ago. In that speech I was trying to make the

case for Glasgow getting an increased share of the grant. I said that it was a very old city and that she was now beginning to show her age.
I join in the tributes which have been paid to the voluntary services, the Corporation, and the Army for the magnificent job they did. The chief officers of Glasgow Corporation are full of admiration for the help and encouragement they have received from my right hon. Friend and his Under-Secretaries of State.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) asked for a ceiling on the rates. I understood the Secretary of State to say that no local authority would suffer because of the storm damage. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Ross: Not suffer unduly.

Mr. Buchanan: I suppose that is fair enough, but it does not go as far as I would like.
Glasgow is in a unique position. It is significant that 100 years ago Glasgow's first city improvement Act received the Royal Assent. Since 1885, when the Royal Commission under Sir Charles Dilke reported, through to the Royal Commissions of 1912 and 1919, successive Governments have been warned of the state of Glasgow's houses. It is no surprise to the people of Glasgow that the storm took such a heavy toll. It brought to the notice of the people of the United Kingdom the conditions under which we live in Glasgow. The wonder to us who live in Glasgow is that the disaster was not much more widespread and that we are not numbering our dead and injured in thousands, rather than the 20 or so poor people who were killed. We offer our sympathy to the bereaved.
According to Cullingworth, it appears that 150.000 houses in Scotland should be condemned. Of these, probably 11,000 will be in Glasgow. I think that the wind proved the fallability of such figures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has tried to show on several occasions, many of Glasgow's houses are more than 100 years old. If we recognise the fact that four-fifths of the houses built in Glasgow since 1918 are local authority houses, we find that the majority of tenement houses are in the 60 to 100-year category. It is here that we find the continuing cause of our trouble.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith), who is my Member of Parliament, injected a little political acid into the debate. He referred to the Rent Restriction Acts. Section 25 of the 1919 Act required the owner of a property to take all reasonable measures to make the house reasonably fit for human habitation. Much of our difficulty today stems from the fact that properties were not kept in good condition. It is the failure to carry out necessary repairs which has brought us to tie brink of catastrophe.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Rent Restriction Acts were to blame for the failure to keep houses in good repair. It is true that repair costs have rocketed and that many landlords must now find themselves in difficulties, but they would have had a much better case if they could show that when it was possible to increase rents, when the cost of repairs was falling, they fulfilled their responsibilities to their tenants.
Throughout that period there was an acute shortage of houses and the emphasis was placed mainly on increasing the existing stock of houses rather than on demolition. I read in one report that houses in Lyon Street which were regarded as unfit in the 1930s were demolished, through the unceasing efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), only a couple of years ago.
In May 1967, at the last count, Glasgow had a stock of 330,000 houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) spoke about the 11,000 houses which are unfit for human habitation and the 75,000 which are substandard and cannot be made fit. I thought that my hon. Friend's solution was rather facile—that we should demolish them, and that money would be wasted in repairing them. If we demolished them where should be accommodate the people? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill talked about Glasgow's out-county estate. The Government should investigate the way that Glasgow is being asked to pay for the privilege.
The 11,000 and 75,000 houses are situated in an area of discontent—an area of fear and terror every time the wind blows—and not the exceptionally high wind but the normal winter wind.
The people there live in terror. In normal winters ceilings come down; chimney heads come down and people are injured. Hundreds of people live in misery throughout the winter. No matter how hard they try—whether they visit their councillor or go to their medical officer of health or the chief sanitary inspector —they just cannot get the repairs carried out.
One woman came to my "surgery", and I went to see her on Saturday. She said, "My ceiling has come down for the fifth time. The storm brought it down." It was a lovely house—beautifully kept—but the ceiling had come down for the fifth time. She was one who had bought her house in a tenement. Three people in the tenement own their houses and the rest are factored. With the ceiling coming down for the fifth time it is obvious that the necessary repairs to the roof have never been carried out.
I know another woman who had two ceilings down and another one ready to come down. She had no light, and water poured in down the light fixture in the centre of the living room. She had gone to her house factor and he had said," I cannot do anything for you. It will be at least six months before we get round to repairing that. I have only four men." That is the position that we are now in. Where shall we get the men? If the money were available—if my right hon. Friend said," The money is there "—we would not have the men. I doubt whether we shall get many from England, because the roofs of the houses in Glasgow are different from those in England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, work on a Glasgow roof is hazardous and risky, and requires great skill.
From these benches, which are often critical about Defence Estimates, I want to pay tribute to the work done by the soldiers in Glasgow in that period—not only for their work but for what they did in entertaining people by putting on cinema shows and by providing meals. They did a first-class job. Within that body of soldiers there was a small core of skilled men who could work on roofs. I suggest that this avenue should be explored.
I know that it is a sensitive matter from the point of view of the trade unions and


that the position will have to be negotiated. But here is a reservoir of skilled labour which can be used. The people cannot wait for six months; they cannot wait even for one month. These soldiers could render their skills almost immediately and do a first-class job. This was a grave emergency, and it gave rise to a first-class response, but if we are to have Operation Rescue rather than Operation First Aid, many more of the country's resources will have to be utilised.
I cannot see how the property owners will overcome their problems. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal, but this disaster provides him with an opportunity to give the necessary leadership and to devote the necessary resources, in order to encourage and assist those who are willing to tackle the problem, while compelling action on the part of those who are a little laggard in their attitude.
The situation which has existed in Glasgow for years demands an increase in the rate of slum clearance. We are on the brink of tragedy in Glasgow. If these slums are not dealt with in Glasgow in a couple of winters' time it will not take a 100 m.p.h. gale to blow them down; they will be blown down in normal winter gales, and many people will lose their lives. We have delayed far too long in this matter. We need an urgent reappraisal of the situation and a reconditioning of existing houses, together with a full-fledged campaign of inspection and repair in order to prevent further deterioration. We want an increased allocation of new houses, which makes nonsense of the Government's decision to cut housing in Scotland.
I referred earlier to various reports about housing the working classes of Scotland. In all these reports the accent is upon assisting the working classes by subsidising the building of houses, and the rents after the houses are built. This may be all right, although some Members may disagree. I have always felt it unfair that a member of the same working class who attempts to solve his own problem by buying a house receives no help at all until he pays Income Tax. If he tries to solve his own housing problem by buying his house, he is penalised. He receives no assistance, and this is manifestly unfair. Assistance could be given. This

is not the time to argue that point, although it probably is the place.
The point that I am trying to make is that many members of the working class who are purchasing their houses in a commendable effort to solve their own problems will be faced with calamitous bills for repairs. Their insurance will not cover the cost, because insurance companies will pay only to the extent of the buildings' worth, and these are buildings that the property owners want to hand to the corporation because they are practically valueless. This means that the insurance cover will be very little. I appeal to my right hon. Friend; these people must be helped.

Mr. William Hamilton: I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair. He must remember that the mortgage option scheme was designed to help precisely the type of people to whom he is referring.

Mr. Buchanan: It will not help the type that I have in mind—the man who tries to solve his own problem in Glasgow. He has to find a house in a tenement. That is the only place in which he can find one. Many insurance companies do not regard a Glasgow tenement as a good risk.
I appreciate the point made about the Clean Air Act. My constituency of Springburn is not yet subject to the Act, and many chimneys which have come down will have to be rebuilt. I am pleased that something is being done in this matter. It costs £125 to rebuild a chimney head, and if a grant can be given in respect of the Clean Air Act it will save much trouble. Apart from chimneys which have come down, some are ready to fall at any moment and the grant should be offered to those willing to have their chimney head demolished and observe the Clean Air Act.
Glasgow faces a tremendous bill on top of a tremendous redevelopment programme and its finances are stretched to the uttermost limit. This, on top of the £8 or £9 million already committed, is further stretching its resources. I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 73 of the Collingworth Report:
The problem, especially in Glasgow, is of such huge dimensions as to place it beyond the resources of any single authority.


If that was true when the Report was written, it is doubly true today. We have had our last warning. This may be our last chance. I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power to alleviate Glasgow's travail.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I am sorry to begin on one note of dissension from all the speeches so far, in that I believe that our procedures for debates on Scottish affairs in the Scottish Grand Committee are insufficiently flexible to allow for a debate o an emergency situation like this. Although we have cause to be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having opened the debate and given up a Supply Day for it, I do not think that this should be necessary. There should be a flexibile system for calling the Scottish Grand Committee when required. It is all very well to say that this is a national affair, but very few English Members have been present to hear the debate today, so there is no real distinction in this case. Thus, one lesson which should be learned from the disaster is that we might look at our Standing Orders relating to meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee—

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member is wrong. The Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee permit the Scots to meet there, and I understood that there was an offer of a debate in the Grand Committee on this subject.

Mr. Steel: With respect, we had no meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, for example, yesterday, when we normally meet. I mentioned that the last time the Grand Committee met we met for only an hour—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we might get back to the subject of the storm damage in Scotland.

Mr. Steel: I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker.
I want to deal first with the position in my constituency. I have received factual information from the three county councils and eight burgh councils in the area, and I am glad to say that for most the damage was relatively trivial. The costs facing the local authorities are relatively small but, rather than weary the House, I will give the Secretary of State

full details later. The burgh most affected by the damage is Innerleithen, a small burgh in the Tweed Valley in Peebles-shire, where the cost of repairs of local authority houses is estimated to be £4,000. This is an important point, since £4,000 is a minute sum compared with the total damage we have been discussing, but a 1d. on the rates in a little town like Inverleithen raises only £235, so £4,000 is a considerable burden for them.
One interesting fact which my inquiries among local authorities revealed is that there seems to be a certain shortage of some materials for repairs. In particular, I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that two local authorities reported that there is a complete shortage of zinc ridging—

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross indicated dissent.

Mr. Steel: Well, I am simply conveying the information of two local authorities. I shall be glad to hear if this is not so, but this is what I have been told. This relates to other materials also, of which I will give the Secretary of State details.
Peeblesshire is the Scottish county most severely hit, with the exception, I think, of Midlothian, in terms of the damage done to timber. It is estimated that the Forestry Commission has lost 150,000 cubic feet of timber and private woodlands about 900,000 cubic feet, representing about 50,000 trees, which is about six times the normal annual amount of felling in Peeblesshire. Therefore, the damage to timber has been severe. All the sawmills will be very busy and they estimate that it will take up to two years to clear the fallen trees. Therefore, some will be almost unusable for their intended purposes, because they will in that time be affected by various forms of decay. Thus farmers and woodland owners will suffer loss.
It is right to pay tribute again, particularly in a part of Scotland like my constituency, to the people who have been working continuously right up to now on the repair of electricity cables and telephone lines. This work, including necessary overtime, has been going on solidly ever since the night of the gales.
I turn finally to some general observations and lessons which we should learn


from this disaster. It was probably a disappointment to many people when the Secretary of State made his announcement about £500,000. Psychologically, that was probably wrong. It is interesting to compare what was done over the "Torrey Canyon", when it was said that, for every item of local authority expense above a burden of 2d. on the rates, the Government would pay 75 per cent. At least everyone understood this formula and knew what the effect would be on him.
Even today, when the Secretary of State improved on his previous statement by saying that no "undue hardship" will fall on the rates in any one town, the interpretation of that phrase is still wide open. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be generous, but that is not the same, he will agree, as a clear-cut statement of what the financial effect will be both on public and private property—

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. The £500,000 of which he spoke is an entirely different scheme and has no parallel with the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. The matter which he mentioned was reflected on by the Secretary of State earlier today, and is entirely different.

Mr. Steel: I am not certain how it is entirely different. I am talking about the expense faced by local authorities as a result of disaster— [Interruption.] Very well, but I am talking about what the Secretary of State said this afternoon about no "undue hardship" falling on the ratepayers in any community. I think that he will agree that that is not the same as some sort of formula, as in the case of the "Torrey Canyon". It is wide open; I hope that the Secretary of State will interpret the words "undue hardship" very generously.
In addition to the damage which it has done, something which has not been mentioned already tonight is the fact that the storm has obviously shortened the life of many older properties, some of which are being condemned now and others of which will be condemned shortly. It is impossible now, or even in the near future, to assess the long-term hidden damage, and it has clearly made

Scotland's already bad housing situation still worse.
This brings me to what should be one of the most concrete points to emerge from the debate. I join with those on both sides who have raised the question of the Government's cut in the housing programme. I know that the restoration of the cut of 1,500 in Scotland will have no immediate effect on the housing situation, but I believe that the Secretary of State now has a strong case for going back to the Cabinet, armed with the latest Cullingworth Report and the report of this debate, to ask that we should not suffer the same 10 per cent. cut in our housing programme as the rest of the United Kingdom—simply because of the acute housing crisis in Scotland, which has been made worse by this storm. I hope that he will feel that he would have the support of all hon. Members if he were able to persuade the Government to lift this cut.
One minor point brought home to me by one or two people affected by the damage is that the Scottish Office might think of using its excellent series of public announcements on television to tell people their rights once they have suffered damage. The amount of ignorance which exists is remarkable. For instance, a lady in Edinburgh was unable to persuade her landlord that he was responsible for replacing broken windows. This is extraordinary, but there is a good deal of misunderstanding about people's rights and perhaps the general Scottish Office announcements could be used to explain this to people.
In the long term, perhaps the best lesson we can learn from this disaster is that a gap exists in our Welfare State. It is that we make no provision for calamities of this kind. Last year my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party sought leave to introduce a Bill—it was sponsored by Members of all parties—to create a national disaster fund. The leave of the House was given, but the Bill did not proceed further because the Treasury, the Charity Commissioners and others had grave doubts about it.
There is a case now for establishing a national disaster fund, which would accumulate the surpluses which are given by voluntary contributions to individual


disasters and all contributions paid in by the Government from time to time. Instead of the need, every time a disaster occurs, to make ad hoc arrangements to meet it—I am thinking of Aberfan, the "Torrey Canyon" and now this disaster—with crisis meetings, appeals, and so on to see what can be done in a hurry, a permanent national disaster fund should be established as part of our welfare State.

7.20 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate. I speak now because I felt it important that hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies should have the first say, for there can be no doubt that Glasgow suffered more acutely than any other part of Scotland in this disaster.
This was a real disaster for Glasgow and for other places, like Greenock. It brought great suffering to many families aid to some of them it brought tragedy. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the matter in a constructive way and did not in any way try to make party capital out of what has been a tragedy for so many homes.
I understand the impatience of some of our people. I appreciate that some of them may be feeling that the Secretary of State has not been moving sufficiently quickly. As is so often the case, the Press in Scotland played on these intense feelings and used them as a rod with which to whip the Secretary of State. I am glad that this debate is taking place because my right hon. Friend's constructive speech showed clearly not only what he, as Secretary of State, had been and still is doing, but what is being done by his officials, by the Corporation of Glasgow, by many voluntary organisations and by everybody in Glasgow who has been able to give help—from the Secretary of State down, or, some might say, from my right hon. Friend up. All have been pulling their weight to try to overcome as quickly as possible the damage caused by that awful wind.
In my constituency the homes that suffered most were the temporary houses of the local authority. We still have a great many of these temporary houses in Lanarkshire. Many of them had their

roofs blown off and I hand it to my local authority and the workmen who were employed to repair the damage. These men worked seven days a week, and even at night by flood light, to ensure that, as soon as possible, the occupiers of these houses had watertight homes. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be done.
When I hear my hon. Friends speak about the shocking conditions in the tenements of Glasgow, I cannot but feel glad that in my constituency, which used to have property in which such conditions prevailed—I am thinking of the old miners' rows—we now have scarcely any property of that type because Lanarkshire has an excellent record in house building. However, my constituency, like others, has entailed great expense and will be faced with further expenditure because of this disaster.
Although the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) criticised the Secretary of State, I was glad that my right hon. Friend said earlier that no local authority will have to bear an undue extra rate burden. I have sufficient faith in my right hon. Friend to know that he will see to that. When the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing)—in trying to ensure that it would not be a heavier rate burden than is absolutely necessary—tried to take the matter further; she asked if it would be any higher than 6d. If my right hon. Friend were to say that what he has in mind was a rate burden of about 6d. in the £, I would tell him that he has been misleading us greatly. I say that because I am expecting that, whatever the increase may be, it will be nothing like 6d. but, rather, that it might be only 1d. or 2d.
A number of private houses were damaged in my constituency and the other day I received a pathetic letter from an old couple who own their own little house. It is not a house in a tenement, but stands by itself. The roof was blown off in the storm. I am speaking of thrifty old people who made sure that their home was insured. However, they were not insured against this sort of damage. They wrote to me expressing their extreme worry over what occurred.
Today the Secretary of State outlined the arrangements that have been made—


as a result of meetings, discussions and so on—with Glasgow Corporation to ensure that private houses would be repaired first, and that then the money would be got from the owners. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will say that the arrangements are as closely tied up for places like Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire for private property as they are for Glasgow Corporation.
We are told that there will be no undue burden on the rates. Whatever the burden may be, owner occupiers will have to carry their share of it. I am thinking of the little people in my constituency—people like the old couple of whom I spoke and whom I visited last Friday—who should not be obliged to find the whole cost of repairing their damage and, at the same time, contribute towards the cost of repairing damaged council houses. I beg my right hon. Friend to give further thought to this matter.
I appreciate that the officers of the Ministry of Social Security have done excellent work in the weeks since the storm occurred. Many families have expressed their gratitude to those officers and I appreciate that discretionary grants have been awarded. I would like to see that old couple in my constituency and people in their position being helped with the repair of their damaged homes. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could have discussions with the Minister of Social Security to see if some arrangement could be made.
No matter how generous the Government may be, they cannot dish out money on every side sometimes to people who need none of it—and the Ministry of Social Security might be the appropriate vehicle. I know that that would put a further burden on supplementary benefit officers who have already carried a very heavy burden for a very long time, but I am sure that they would be very willing to carry that extra burden if it were to help the kind of people whom I have in mind.
In my constituency a number of people own glass houses in which they grow tomatoes, flowers and the like. A few of them have suffered very great damage. My right hon. Friend has announced that

they would qualify for about 38⅓ per cent. grant. But what about the man with a nursery, who does not have a number of acres under glass but only a very small piece of land? I understand that the provision will not apply to him, yet some of these small people have the whole of their capital in their business. They work morning, noon and night. They are the type whom I would like to see helped, and I hope the Government will find some means of helping them. If I cannot be told tonight what cen be done for them, perhaps I may be told later.

7.33 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I very much welcome the atmosphere of party political truce in which this debate began and in which it has largely been conducted. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on turning his back on the temptation to use a Supply Day to attack the Government on some vulnerable point, and instead, devoting attention in a constructive debate to a very serious problem. Obviously, we do not attempt to blame the Government for the hurricane, but we will judge them on the remedial action they take.
Glasgow has certainly stolen the limelight, as it were, in terms of destruction and damage, but Edinburgh also suffered a great deal. No fewer than 72 houses were destroyed and 8,000 were damaged. The repair bill is estimated at about £½million. Suggestions have been made in the past about jerrybuilding in Edinburgh, but some of the so-called jerrybuilt houses have stood the test remarkably well, and some of the builders who have been criticised previously now deserve some measure of praise.
I hope that the following suggestion on housing will be regarded as constructive. Would the Government consider inviting the Building Research Station to conduct a special study of the effects of this hurricane upon housing in Scotland? As we all know, a lot of new industrialised house building systems have been used in the last few years, and this gale might provide a good opportunity to find out whether the buildings are as satisfactory as we hope they are. Personally, I think that they have proved themselves well, but it is right that we should take advantage of what the gale may be able


to teach us about bad workmanship, bad design, or even lack of maintenance.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Is the hon. Member aware that in the new town of Livingston in my constituency extensive damage was done to houses built by the industrialised method?

Earl of Dalkeith: That emphasises my point. It would be worth while getting the Building Research Station to undertake a serious examination of that type of house, and it would be a convenience to the House and to everyone else if the Station then made a report as soon as possible.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has told me that many people living in multi-storey high flats spent a night of very great anxiety. I hope that those people are now reassured that the buildings, having withstood that gale, should be able to withstand anything. Nevertheless buildings of that type should be included in the searching investigation I suggest should be made by the B.R.S.
I was worried by the Secretary of State's attitude to compensation for damage to privately-owned houses. A great many owners of those houses would not have insurance cover for storm damage, and I hope that, even though some of the houses may he owned by brewers, the right hon. Gentleman will not have a closed mind towards giving some compensation even though, perhaps, it means offering rather less to local authorities.
I echo the praise that has been given to the voluntary services and, if it is not invidious to do so, I single out for special praise the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Now that so many people have seen what a wonderful job the members of that Service do, it may help recruiting. The praise given to the civil defence suggests that we should think very seriously before putting that organisation on a care and maintenance basis.
The G.P.O. and the electricity boards have so far not received the praise in this debate that they deserve. They had to tackle an extremely difficult job in the countryside very quickly. I know that some hon. Members were left without light for some time, but their staffs dealt with the position with great energy. Here, I would ask the Minister to consider whether the Government's policy

on underground cables should be reviewed in the light of the costs of repairing damaged lines which occur every time there is a gale.
Turning to forestry, I declare my interest in the usual way although, luckily, I did not suffer very greatly from the storm. For laudable reasons, the industry did not wish to emphasise the damage and suffering it had endured, because that was material suffering and forestry owners knew how very much human suffering there was in the towns. As a result, not very much publicity has been given to the catastrophic damage suffered by the industry in Scotland. It is especially right, in the context of forestry that we should be having a United Kingdom debate, because the whole nation is affected quite apart from the damage suffered in forests in northern England. Little has been heard about that.
The scale of the problem is something which I think escapes the layman, because we tend to talk about such things as 38 million hoppus feet and no one knows what on earth is a hoppus foot. Some people think that it is an affliction or a disease. To put it in rather more graphic and concrete terms, 38 million hoppus feet is equal to an international-sized football ground packed solidly with timber sawn square to a height greater than the height of the clock tower containing Big Ben. To put it another way, it is equal to a solid wooden wall 6 ins. thick and 7 ft. high reaching from Edinburgh to Athens—a distance of 2,000 miles. That gives some idea of the scale.
More damage is likely to be discovered because many trees which appear to be unharmed will be vulnerable to gales coming from a different direction to which they will be exposed. Over the next 18 months or so damage to forestry is likely to rise by about 10 per cent. It would have been three times as great if the ground had not been frozen at the time.
The importance of forestry is in relation to the balance of payments and import savings. Although 38 million hop-pus feet sounds small in relation to the annual import figure and the annual consumption figure, the fact that the total volume of imports is so colossal means that the quantity of blown timber could involve a substantial figure. Provided we use this to the best advantage for the


country, it could amount to a saving of imports of between £9 million and £12 million. It is from this angle that the Government should tackle the question of remedial action.
Here I highlight three specific problems and suggest means by which they might be tackled. The Secretary of State referred to the action group being set up, which will report later, but if the Government are to produce quick decisions immediately recommendations are made by that group, they should be thinking about possible remedies now. This is why I advance some suggestions. The first necessity is to maintain price stability in the market. There is a danger that this surplus of timber, particularly of mill-sized timber, suddenly made available may cause a glut. The effects on growers would reach not only among those in Scotland but from John o' Groat's to Land's End if timber market prices became unstable. This is very much a national point.
As to action which can be taken, there are certain precedents in the 1953 disaster in which there was a voluntary limitation of felling. Quite apart from the felling licences which were operating at that time, there was a limitation outside the affected areas. The Government should give consideration to assisting those who co-operate in doing this and by so doing lose income which they depend upon each year. I wonder, in view of the high Bank Rate, if the Government would consider making long-term loans available to them. The Forestry Commission could set an example in respect of its forests in other areas. This is something which I am sure it will do.
The second problem is the question of direct financial loss which the industry has suffered through breakage of timber, which can amount to 10 per cent. perhaps of the 38 million hoppus feet. There is the investment loss as a result of a crop of trees at 30 years of age being worth only a quarter of what they would be worth at 60. There is the high cost of harvesting, through the disentangling of timber and very much higher costs of replanting and draining the ground.
Action which should be considered is threefold. First, there should be a revised planting grant for affected areas to

encourage those who have suffered to restock quickly. It is essential that restocking should take place next winter. Otherwise all kinds of weeds will grow and it becomes almost impossible to established the next crop. Unless extra encouragement is given, those areas in many cases will be neglected, not planted, and will become wildernesses for years to come.
I also suggest action through the introduction of long-term loans at reasonable interest rates. I recommend very strongly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Government should look seriously at the question of investment grants in respect of machinery used in forestry. This would not be very difficult. It is simply a question of broadening the present definition to include such machinery as power saws, debarking machines, winches and tractors used for timber extraction. If these could qualify for the 45 per cent. investment grant in development areas and a 25 per cent. grant elsewhere, it would go a long way towards helping the industry. This is a permanent necessity, which is especially necessary now.
My third point concerns marketing and transport. If we are to secure maximum import saving advantage, we must get timber to consumers who normally are beyond the economic range of the forests. For instance, the National Coal Board in the Midlands is at present importing a great deal of timber. Provided we can get the timber there from forests in Scotland economically, a great deal more could be saved in imports. There is also the question of getting timber to local authorities in the South and to builders, door and component manufacturers, and to pulp mills which are outside the economic range of many forests. In these there may be supply problems due to diverting manpower to salvaging mill-sized timber. There should be a temporary transport subsidy for specific areas. A figure which has been suggested to me is 10s. a ton. This might apply to about half a million tons out of the total 1½million tons which have been blown and it would amount to about £250,000. This would enable the timber to be taken to consumers who could make the best use of it by saving imports.
I suggest that the Government should give instructions to nationalised industries, including the National Coal Board whom I praise highly for its co-operation and willingness to help in this problem. In addition, nationalised industries and local authorities could perhaps be encouraged to specify the use of homegrown chipboard. This concerns an industry which at the moment is working nearly 30 per cent. below capacity. As imports of chipboard amounted to £5 million last year, they could make a considerable contribution to reducing imports.
I suggest that the Government should publicise the research findings of the Forest Products Research Laboratory showing the many ways in which homegrown timber can be used. Through lack of knowledge of these local authorities and builders often do not use home-grown timber when they could do so. A footnote about a transport subsidy is appropriate because it highlights very clearly how disastrous will be the effects of the Transport Bill, which could easily increase the cost of transporting timber by as much as 7s. 6d. a ton, which the industry simply cannot afford.
There are various other points I should like to make, but I feel that I am taking up too much time. No doubt more suggestions will be made to the Government about how to deal with the forestry industry's problems.
The pulp mill problems will certainly have to be examined carefully to see how they can be helped. I know of one which is not working to full capacity. Because of high charges for electricity at certain peak hours, it has to close down. If the Electricity Board could give a guaranteed rate throughout the day, mills such as this could be kept going all the time.
There are two other points in connection with farmers and foresters. Hedgerow trees have been blown down in large numbers, taking fences with them. This will cause terrible cultivation problems for farmers. Many farmers do not know how they will be able to get their crops sown this spring because of the timber which is still lying in the fields and because of the difficulty of getting fences re-erected.
Then there is the question of roadside trees which, as all hon. Members will

agree, contribute so much to the beauty of the countryside. Many roadside trees fell across roads during this gale. We must establish who is responsible for paying for the cost of clearing them. If it transpires that the owners of the trees are landed with the burden, I very much fear that we shall be looking upon a naked countryside in future. If we want a countryside enhanced by roadside trees, local authorities and the Government together should make it possible for owners to be absolved of the burden of clearing these trees.
This is the second disaster to hit rural industries in a year. Once again it is brought home upon us what a puny creature man is when dealing with nature. Trees fortunately do not get foot-and-mouth disease, but they suffer other hazards beyond man's control. We cannot blame the Government for gales, but we shall judge them, and the country will judge them, upon their ability to help the industries and the people who have suffered out of their difficulties.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) will forgive me if I do not comment on that part of his speech which dealt with forestry. As I have no expertise in that subject, I shall not seek to make a contribution to it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this has been a very useful debate. I shall keep my speech as short as possible, because I know that even at this stage a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was constructive and non-political, as was the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Both Front Bench speeches were temperate and moderate. They set the tone for what has been for all of us a useful and interesting discussion and one which I hope will show people outside that we are genuinely worried about these problems.
There has been a little exaggeration in some sections of the Scottish Press about lack of interest on the part of Members of Parliament. Scottish Members, not only here but also in their constituencies, have shown a great deal of interest and given much valuable assistance. This has enabled us all to see—


this has been said before, but it cannot be said too often—the exceptionally valuable work which has been done by the police, the fire service and the voluntary services. I was impressed by the number of young people in my constituency who, although they belonged to no voluntary service and no organisation, played a very active part in assisting those whose houses were damaged and who were placed in jeopardy.
In the very nature of things, a number of suggestions have been made to the Government as to their future course of action. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) projected his mind rather further than most of us have been inclined to do. He suggested a number of things which might be done in the future. I am inclined to agree with him on one point, namely, that we in Scotland have in a sense been overtaken by the fact that our housing is exceptionally bad. We read newspaper reports of Government agencies or quasi-Government agencies telling us how bad our housing is. Our housing is bad now. It was bad under the Tory Administration. It has been bad for a very long time.
The only answer is to continue with the policy of building many more new houses. In my area the older houses have taken the brunt of the storm damage. One answer to those outside and inside the House who have been critical is that in the last year 40,000 houses were completed. The only way that we can ever hope to solve the present difficulties is by building more and more new houses.
I want to say a few words about the problems facing owner-occupiers. I do not want anyone to think that I am not interested in the problems of those who own bungalows, semi-villas and the rest. Those are people who normally buy their houses through recognised agencies. They are people who, like myself, probably bought their houses on the advice of solicitors. They have bought their houses and they have insured them. They are reasonably well protected because of their own knowledge of these problems.
The group of people about whom I am worried—this problem arises particularly in the West of Scotland—is those who own small houses—two-apartment tenements, and so on. Many years ago we had a discussion in the House as to

whether it was wise that such houses should be sold at all. Be that as it may, it is now a fairly common practice for houses of this kind to be sold. They are not sold in the way in which semi-villas, bungalows, and so on, are sold. As my bon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) said, little help was given to these people. My hon. Friend was interrupted and reminded that there was an option mortgage scheme. Unhappily, the option mortgage scheme does not apply to those who are my main concern today.
The people who are my main concern in this section of my comments are those who buy two-apartment houses for £300 or £400. They pay off the debt at, say, 30s. a week. They do not do this through building societies or with any legal advice. They depend entirely on the good will of the person who sells them the house. Unhappily, this has not always been forthcoming. They buy with little advice. Consequently, they are in very serious difficulty in that in the vast majority of cases they have not insured their houses.
One thing which has troubled me in the course of my investigations into this problem is that these owner-occupiers in small houses in a tenement block pay a factorage charge to a recognised factor. I am told that they are legally obliged to do this. Some property owners or factors seem to be failing in their responsibilities. I have seen the accounts which factors send to the occupiers of these small houses. I mean no disrespect to the owners of these houses when I say that many of them are not as well informed about their responsibilities as they might well be. They take it that if somebody is factoring the property on their behalf he will ensure that all possible care is taken to insure the property for them. I have looked at some of the charges which have been made. In many cases the factors simply have not insured the houses and have not advised the owners that this was something that they should do.
Houses of this kind are being sold in great numbers in the West of Scotland—I can only speak for that area—and it is important that the small purchaser should have a better assurance about the nature of what he is buying. It is unfair that they should be saddled, as many


have been, with houses nearly at the condemned stage, A good many people have told me that they have bought houses and then found out that they were due to be condemned. They had not been made aware of this fact. Sometimes the houses are in a bad state of repair. Houses of this kind should not be sold unless specific guarantees are given by the sellers.
These folk have a lot of worries. Will they be obliged to pay the cost of demolition, should that be necessary? My right hon. Friend has been helpful in saying that work should go ahead with all possible speed, but, if I remember aright, the legal responsibility for the cost of demolishing a house lies on the shoulders of the owner-occupier. I should like an assurance, particularly on behalf of these people, that, if it be necessary to demolish a house, the law on this point will not be pressed to the limit.
Small owner-occupiers and tenants of private properties have difficulty in organising repairs. In my constituency and in surrounding areas I have seen the work which the local authorities have done. This has been excellent in Lanarkshire, and it has been organised very well. Likewise, some property owners hive organised their affairs extremely well. But it has been difficult for some of the folk to whom I have referred, the owner-occupiers of two-apartment and three-apartment houses, to organise their affairs and to get repairs done. Very often, the lion's share has been taken by other agencies better able to fend for themselves. I hope, therefore, that something will be done specifically for small owner-occupiers and tenants.
My right hon. Friend has told us of the scheme in operation in Glasgow, and I am happy to hear that it operates also in part of my constituency. But I want to know whether these assurances will apply to the rest of Lanarkshire as well.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) spoke of the difficulty in disseminating information. In the Press over the past few weeks, there has been a great deal of comment about storm damage, but, unhappily, the statements made by members of the Government, by officers of the Department or by officials of town councils have had little prominence. There is still a great lack of

information and, as a result, a great deal of worry in the minds of ordinary tenants and owner-occupiers. I suggest that, in major areas, centres should be established specifically for the purpose of giving advice on storm damage and problems of that kind. There should be some such place to which people can go. Many people have gone to burgh surveyors and so on, but it would be a great help if there were storm or gale information centres to which people could go for guidance. This part of the problem is really the background to our whole discussion. There is uncertainty about the position of our constituents.
Now, the question of compensation for goods. I was delighted to hear that the Lord Provost of Glasgow has set up a fund. It will be of considerable value to many people in his area. Unhappily, the benefits of donations received by the Lord Provost of Glasgow or the benefit of what he does by using the common good fund or his personal fund will not be distributed to other people. There is a strong case, therefore, for assistance in compensation for goods and possessions which people have lost. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) pointed out that this could, presumably, be done only through the Ministry of Social Security. Here again, there is uncertainty. I hope that the Minister of State will indicate the lines on which the Ministry of Social Security could give assistance.
One difficulty facing my constituents is that they are not certain whether they should apply. They seem to be under the impression that only those already in receipt of some form of supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit can apply for assistance to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that, even when a man is working, if he is on a small wage, he will have some sort of benefit.
I leave the matter there. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to continue with the work he has been doing up to now.

8.6 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) has just said. Indeed, I find


myself in agreement with almost everything said from both sides of the House in this debate, which is most unusual.
Together with hon. Members of all parties, I put my name to the Motion calling for a debate on the storm damage in Scotland, and I am glad that we have had one. It has been a most useful debate. The gale may, perhaps, have served one useful purpose, by helping to ventilate—if that be the word—a lot of topics which badly needed ventilation. I am particularly pleased that the debate has been held on the Floor of the House and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition opened it. This has shown the emergency for what it is, a national emergency. This is how it should be treated.
It was right that most of the hon. Members called so far represented Glasgow and its outskirts because that was where the full force of the gale struck. But my constituency also had its share of damage. The Burgh of Rothesay alone suffered £50.000 worth of damage, private and public. That is a lot of money. Millport, too, suffered £12,000 worth of damage, which for a small community is a heavy burden. To show the violence with which the gale struck Cumbrae, I can tell the House that the brand new public conveniences which have just been erected were blown 60 ft. out to sea.

Mr. Rankin: What happened on Arran?

Sir F. Maclean: Arran, because of its sheltered position, was relatively lucky, although there was some damage there, too.
On the mainland of Ayrshire, my constituents were, on the whole, more fortunate than their neighbours in Greenock, Gourock and Glasgow. At least there was no loss of life. But it was a capricious storm that struck here and there arbitrarily. The wind swung from one point of the compass to the other. Thus the Burgh of Stevenston suffered much worse than the adjoining burghs of Ardrossan and Saltcoats. Largs, on the other hand, where the hostile Viking ships were driven aground and wrecked in the great gale of 1263, again got off lightly, though for exactly the opposite reason, namely, that the storm did not strike as hard there as it did elsewhere.
Quite apart from the urban areas, serious damage was suffered in my constituency, as in others, by farmers, horticulturalists, poultry farmers and, particularly, by timber growers—private growers as well as the Forestry Commission. But what has struck me particularly wherever I have been, both in my constituency and out with it, has been the remarkable spirit shown by all concerned. It was remarkable how quickly roads and railway lines were cleared of fallen timber, not always an easy job, and how quickly the essential services were restored. How relatively quickly, for example, telephone and electricity facilities were brought into action again. I was shown the time sheet of an employee of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board who had put in 116 hours in one week. That is what I call backing Britain. Incidentally, the motor vessel "Keppel" completed the Millport-Largs run as usual at 7.40 on the morning of the storm—a really good effort by the crew. To my mind everybody concerned, whether publicly- or privately-employed, deserves a very warm tribute for their work.
I was very glad that the Secretary of State spoke as he did of people, because in all this the human element is extremely important. The same spirit was shown wherever I went by the victims of the disaster. They showed great restraint and unselfishness in being quite ready to wait for repairs to be done to their houses while others who had suffered worse than they had were attended to. Those of us whose constituencies were not among the worst hit should, I think, show similar restraint and I therefore do not want to detain the House for too long. But there are a number of questions I should like to ask. I appreciated the generally sympathetic and positive attitude of the Secretary of State, and the same can be said of his Department ever since the disaster struck. But I should like more information on one or two points.
First, I am not a great believer in weather forecasts, but it would be interesting to hear whether anything more can be done meteorologically to see whether we can get a little more warning when these disasters are about to hit us, whether there is any way of telling if a hurricane will suddenly change course in


the middle of the Atlantic as this one did.
Another point concerns builders and building materials. The Secretary of State said today, for the second time, that there is no serious shortage of building materials. My experience has been that there is a shortage of slates, possibly because roofs are largely now made of synthetic materials. But a lot of the houses damaged had slated roofs and therefore must be repaired with slates. The quarries both at Balachulish and Easdale are both now shut. I do not know whether there is any prospect of reopening either of them or getting slates from another source. My experience has been that it is even harder to find slaters than the slates. It has been suggested that we might get them from cities in England which do not need them so much at present. Could we be told something about that?
I was glad that the Secretary of State and a number of hon. Members showed proper appreciation of the terrible damage suffered by horticulturalists, people with glasshouses. I have sent him one or two letters from constituents which show a very sad state of affairs. For example, one is from a man who has had all his glass blown down and, probably because he used a grant to put it up, also has a big overdraft. There is also the question of what happens to the crop, left under the glass, or the crop he would have put under it if it had been there. Then there are henhouses—also very easily damaged. I was glad that the Secretary of State said that in the case of horticulture he would apply the regulations very generously. I hope that he will do the same in the case of farm damage where there is the problem about farm improvement grants. There are farmers who have used them once and therefore cannot use them again. I hope that he will examine that and see what can be done to help them.
The question of forestry was covered very exhaustively by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). I hope that when the Minister winds up we shall hear whether the Government have any plans to restrict felling and possibly, imports. I realise that this is not simple and that there are difficulties about the large-scale restrictions in either case. But it is very im-

portant that there should not be a glut on the market. And so whether felling and imports can also be restricted voluntarily or otherwise are very important points.
All this brings us to the 64,000 dollar question, namely, finance. As the Secretary of State said, it is a very complicated problem. What will the Government do about it? It may be difficult to say much more than the Secretary of State has said at present but I hope that we shall get more information on this soon. He said that as soon as all the relevant facts had been collected the Scottish Office would go into them carefully and no local authority would have to bear an undue additional rate burden on account of the storm. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a very generous interpretation to the word "undue". This should cover council houses.
But what about privately-owned houses? I was very glad to hear what the hon. Member for Rutherglen and the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said about this. This is a very real and serious problem. I am not talking about large and rich houses but small and poor ones. Some may be substandard. Many are either uninsured or even uninsurable. Where disaster has struck them, you get some tragic human problems. There has been talk of a national disaster fund and I think there is a lot to be said for that. I hope that the Government will consider this carefully and, if such a fund is set up, I hope that they will follow the precedent set by several previous Administrations and contribute £for £to what is raised.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: Owing to the lateness of the hour, I will not enter into the privilege of criticising, nor the pleasure of praising, but get down to the fundamental facts as I see them relating to this great national disaster. I agree with what has been said by many hon. Members who have praised the Opposition for giving us a Supply Day to discuss this very important and non-political problem.
As I see it, this national disaster falls into certain categories. The first is the main tragedy of this unprecedented storm, the terrible loss of limb and life. Second


is the loss of valuable household furniture, goods and personal belongings which, in several instances, were completely destroyed. In a third category there is the damage done to houses throughout Scotland, whether tenement houses or small country cottages or farmhouses. The fourth category is to do with the damage done to industry and to agricultural holdings. Fifth is the loss of seed crop. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to belittle the fact that much of the cash crop from the grassland of Stirling is the hay that has been in the stacks, much of which was completely destroyed. In this category there is the livestock which was killed. My sixth category covers the damage sustained to commercial forests.
In each of these categories it is my contention that a different method of assessing the damage and the compensation payable must be accepted by the Government. They cannot all be lumped into one category. To take the first category, loss of life and injury, this should be assessed for compensation on the basis of industrial compensation as it would apply to anyone killed or injured in their work. As to the loss of household furniture and chattels, compensation should be on the basis of fire damage. For damage to dwelling houses and local authority property, an assessment should be made of the damage done, the age of the property and its expected life and a percentage of the damage having a relationship to these assessments should be paid, and this payment made right across the board.
The damage to industry and agricultural holdings presents a difficult problem. In this category come industrial holdings large and small. At Greenock there was a crane worth £1 million which was completely destroyed, while, as hon. Members have said, there are the small businesses, such as the glasshouses in Lanarkshire, which also were destroyed. All these industrial holdings, agricultural buildings outwith the farmhouse, should be put into one category and an assessment made. It is my belief that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Seed and livestock can be fairly and reasonably assessed, having regard to the market price of the items in question,

whether a cow, a hen, corn or hay. This is not a difficult matter. My last category dealt with the damage done to forests. Afforestation is an important part of our economic well-being. While we may be tempted to pay no regard to those people who own great forests, they are a national asset, and we must be fair and reasonable in trying to assess the damage. I commend the words of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who made valuable and sensible suggestions with regard to afforestation which should be examined carefully.
When it comes to trees and hedges, which are to do with the beautification of the countryside—trees on farmland—they cannot be put in the same category as commercial forests. I would consider that they should be dealt with entirely differently and very little if any compensation given for them. I suggest that in any valuation for such trees the criterion to be adopted should be whether the trees are valued for local government purposes. This compensation should be carried out on a generous scale and dealt with urgently.
We should try to get those which have fallen used to the best advantage and have the sites cleared so that more can be replanted as early. as possible. This is not just for the well-being of the owners of the forests, but for the nation as well. It behoves each of us to look with some degree of concern at this great national loss to the community.
All these things must be exercising the mind of the Secretary of State. I know that what I have suggested would entail many people assessing and valuing the damage done. But if what is being done for agricultural property were being done for all private property, be it industrial or residential, and if each individual who wished to claim put in a claim to either the local authority or the Secretary of State, the assessment of the damage could be undertaken by people with expert knowledge, members of the staff of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, local authorities, and inspectors of local authorities. There could be an influx of competent and well-qualified people from across the border to help in this assessment.
It would be remiss of us as custodians of the public purse to do anything which would seem to give a blank cheque to


any section of the community to fill in any figure they desired. Without being too critical of the Government's actions, I must say that they have to get down to the more practical application of ideas to be equitable and fair in the disbursement of any money available.
It has been suggested that the building trade has been well utilised. I do not think that it has. We all pay tribute to the work which the Armed Forces did in Glasgow, but when I went to see some of my farming friends throughout the West Stirlingshire area on the Friday and Saturday I found them working like Trojans, together with their wives and wee laddies and anyone who could help to salvage the damaged crops. Why was not the Army utilised for this purpose? There w is not a soldier in sight to help in this great endavour of saving the livelihoods of the many excellent people whom I have the pleasure to represent.
I would commend the suggestion about putting the whole aspect of storm damage to the Building Research Station. This is of paramount importance. Although while the wind was at its height some of the tall buildings of Glasgow and elsewhere were not seriously damaged, we never know what may happen if the wind comes from another direction. A full investigation should be made of existing buildings and of buildings erected in future to ensure that they are of sufficient strength to withstand winds of even greater gale force than we have experienced.
I concur with what has been said about the City of Glasgow. Here is a sore which should have been healed many years ago. It would be remiss of anyone to say, "It was your fault" or "It was my fault." The Industrial Revolution was the fault of no one in the House. We have simply inherited what transpired during the Industrial Revolution. It behoves us to try to make sensible contributions to deciding how the problem in Glasgow can be solved. This is the first priority of a civilised Scotland—cleaning away the unsightly, slum houses of Glasgow. This could be done by organising the building industry in such a way that we had a different contractual procedure from that adopted in the past. If only we had the will, determination and drive to do this, it could be done within the next

ten years, and that would be a revolution in itself.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: This has been a very constructive debate, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the information which he gave. I must tell him, however, that I had hoped to hear from him a statement of further action which would be fair to town and country and to private householder and local authority tenant alike. I find it hard to discern this fairness in what he had to say.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that no grant or special aid would be available for private householders. I would call his attention to the problem which faces house owners whose homes are uninsured and people who find it very difficult to meet the first £15 for repairing the damage which they have suffered even though insured.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Exchequer assistance for local authorities may well run into millions of pounds to avoid undue strain being put on the rates. I am sure that that statement will be welcome, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contrast this part of what he said with the remainder of that part of his speech. He told us then that there would be no help for the individual private householder and no help for the farmer, beyond the flexible application of existing grants. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that after his meeting with the local authorities in Glasgow on 22nd January he referred to the damage as being out of all proportion to the authorities' ability to meet the bills. I would ask him to bear in mind that there are many other individuals, far beyond the local authorities themselves, whose losses as a result of this hurricane are out of all proportion to their individual ability to meet the bills. I am not saying for one moment that the Government should provide some sort of free insurance cover and so in effect reward imprudence. I am suggesting, though, that the Government should have special regard for the hardship confronting those whose interests were uninsurable or who have suffered heavy losses and hardship in consequence of this hurricane. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in planning one's life and one's insurance programme a


hurricane of this ferocity, for example, is not a hazard which one reasonably expects.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State in a Question if he would seek to set up a national disaster fund, to provide help for people in extreme hardship. I was disappointed that his reply was, "No". I hope that tonight the Minister in reply to the debate will consider the hardship which faces many of our people in Scotland and who are not being helped at all.
I turn to the countryside. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the feeling there was generally in the countryside that the extent of the disaster beyond the cities had not been really understood. I am not suggesting that the Government have not realised this. I think that in the whole process of communication, through the Press and so on, in the early days interest was concentrated on the cities, and little attention was drawn to what happened in the country. Perhaps it was natural that the first focus of interest should have been on Glasgow in particular where the tragic loss of life and destruction of houses gave a dramatic poignancy to the total disaster. Nevertheless, the damage to agriculture and to forestry was enormous. We have heard some estimates today. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that those estimates are likely to go up as the extent of the damage becomes more accurately known.
Before I develop this point perhaps I could ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could consider one relatively small but still important point concerning agriculture. It is really a tax point. I hope that the cost of the repairs to farm buildings, steadings and so on, will be shown in the profit and loss account, and not in the capital expenditure account. This, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, can have quite an important bearing on many farmers, and I hope he will consider it.
The aid which is being given to farming is through the flexible interpretation of the farm, horticulture and hill land improvement grant schemes. This flexibility is welcome, and I hope it is being applied with common sense, for the hurricane, of course, paid no heed at all to the scale of the grants for which a farmer

is eligible. There is a wide variety in the scale of these grants, ranging from, at one extreme, l2½ per cent. to another of 38⅓ per cent. in the case of horticulture. Therefore, the unfortunate victim finds himself placed between bearing the total cost of damage, less any insurance cover which he may have, or finding the minimum of 61⅔ per cent. in the case of horticultural buildings and 87½cent. of the cost in the case of an intensive poultry breeding unit, for example.
The cost of the damage he has suffered is difficult for a farmer or horticulturist to raise in the present state of the economy. If he can raise the money, it is very expensive to service it and, as I have said, it is particularly difficult for the man who has an intensive poultry unit. One of my own constituents found his intensive unit blown away, his stock lost, and his capital and his income literally gone to the wind. The only help to which he can turn at present is the possibility of investment grants of 12½per cent. in respect of his building and equipment. How can he expect to stay in business? He and others like him will find it very difficult to return to what had been their livelihood a few hours before the hurricane.
However flexibly they are applied, these grants cannot take account of consequential losses, and they are severe. We have heard about haystacks which were blown away, people found that their cash crops had vanished, and, if the hay was retrieved at all, it was so scattered in the rain which came afterwards that it was badly damaged and much less valuable.
Perhaps I might refer briefly to the subject of horticulture, with special reference to Kinross, where there is an important local horticultural industry. It suffered very badly. I have heard of one case where losses amounted to five figures. It has to be understood what the loss of a glasshouse means, because it does not end with the collapse of the building. The income from it goes for quite a long time. Even if the glasshouse can be repaired fairly quickly, the chances are that the grower will have missed the early market, and timing is of paramount importance.
I understand that there is a marked shortage of cut glass in the area. Sheet glass is available, but it is too far away,


and there are transport and cutting difficulties. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the importance of getting glass to the horticultural areas as soon as possible.
As for forestry, I do not know if it is recognised how severely Perthshire suffered. In respect of private forestry alone, over 4½million cubic feet of timber was blown down in those few hours. That represents nearly five years' cut in Perthshire. That gives some impression of the extent of the disaster which struck forestry.
I would underline the point about the need for felling licences, for special marketing arrangements and for a transport subvention. In addition, I call attention to the consequential losses involved here. Clearing cannot be restricted to windblown and damaged timber only. Larger areas will have to be cleared and replanted at a heavy and unexpected cost.
Another point on which the Minister of State might care to comment is damage to fencing between agricultural land and woodland. While it is eligible for grant, it is only half-grant, because only half represents an agricultural interest. I think that the full grant should be paid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that.
I end by calling attention to the two grave problems which need the Government's attention and which have not so far been much in the public eye. The first is the gap which will have to be covered by farmers, horticulturists and foresters between the level of grant and the total cost of the damage. It is a gap which may extend to as much as 87½per cent. of the total, less whatever insurance cover there may be.
The second great difficulty is that of the consequential losses to farming, forestry and horticulture. I think that they are excluded from the estimates which we have heard, and they are excluded completely from the grant aid about which we have been told. However, it is those losses which may ruin some of my constituents and many other people in Scotland.
I hope that the Minister of State will reply to these points in some detail when he winds up the debate.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I will not follow the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on the matter of forestry. Although a lot of trees were blown down in my constituency, which poses a considerable problem, there is no forestry and no agriculture as such. However, the three small towns within my constituency—one of 20,000 inhabitants, another of under 30,000 and the third of under 40,0000—were very badly hit indeed. Fortunately, there was no loss of life—we take this as a blessing—but there was a good deal of injury and a considerable amount of damage to property. The damage was of the type which has been mentioned.
I go along with what hon. Members have said about the danger of chimney heads. This is a serious matter with which it ought to be possible to deal in a practical way. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) pointed out, chimney heads are not always necessary, and perhaps we shall reach the stage one day when houses do not carry them.
The thing that struck me most when I went around Stirling and looked at the damage was not the danger from chimney heads, but from slates. In one area of comparatively recent building there were several hundred slates lying on the ground. They were in a small area between streets. It terrifies one to think what might have happened if this hurricane had been blowing between 3 and 5 during the day instead of between 3 and 5 during the night. I am sure that lives would have been lost, particularly the lives of children.
It is difficult to imagine that people could have escaped. Some slates had been blown down close to buildings, some a little further away, and others even a considerable distance away, having been hurled through the air. Like chimney heads, this is something we do not really need. One or two hon. Members have referred to the Building Research Station. One problem that the Building Research Station might set itself is how to produce roofs free from the tremendous danger that flying slates represent and safer in the sense spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan).


In these days it should be possible to devise a roof which is reasonably safe in both these respects.
I want to say something about what was done in my three towns. Of the three, Grangemouth does not claim to have had anything like the damage of Falkirk and Stirling, both of which proportionately suffered damage in roughly the same band as Glasgow. Probably in financial extent of damage, compared with the size of the population, Stirling was a good deal worse than Glasgow, with Falkirk almost in the same range.
I was in Falkirk on the morning after the storm. I went to see the housing manager at about half-past ten that morning, and discovered that he had already been round the damaged houses. He knew the size of the problem, how many people he would have to rehouse, and that kind of thing. He had the situation well within his grasp. On the same day both Stirling and Falkirk held emergency meetings of councillors and officials who were concerned with the problem to make plans. These plans were carried out during the week, and when I was there on Friday I was told that things were pretty well under control. I attended a meeting of the Stirling emergency group of councillors and officials who were immediately concerned, and I must say that by the end of that week of interest I was very much impressed with the way in which these towns had tackled the problem.
This is a small municipality, the kind which is coming under a good deal of criticism nowadays. People are looking forward to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and thinking that changes should be made. I am not against change. I think that changes are necessary in Scottish local government, but in towns of this size one finds councillors and officials with a detailed knowledge of the people and places in the town. They know them intimately. They are in the habit of carrying responsibility for them, and when something like this happens they work together until they drop. I expect that some of them did drop through overwork.
About 10 years ago, in a Committee room upstairs, a nationally known social scientist said that a housing manager knew people as figures in an index. In

all the time that I have been representing them, I have never been into the office of a housing manager in my towns without, when I mention Mrs. So-and-So, being told all about her. It has never been necessary for files to be sent for, for assistants to be consulted, or for them to be looked up in an index. This is the kind of administration that one gets in a small unit. I am not trying to do more than make the point that there are virtues in a municipal unit of this kind. The virtue lies in the way in which people work together, and accept responsibility.
My experience of these three towns in providing other forms of help is similar to that experienced by other hon. Members. The Army, which occupies a traditionally prominent place in Stirling, gave its married quarters to the town for use during the emergency. In addition, the Territorial Army Associations and the fire and police services rendered considerable help.
More than one hon. Member has referred to the work done by the employees of the Electricity Board and the Post Office, but help came from other directions, too. The W.V.S. did a noble job. A youth hostel in Stirling offered its hostel, together with beds and bedding, for ten days. One of the big hotels offered the use of its bathrooms to people who were not only dishoused, but a bit grubby. Things like this made a tremendous difference to the spirit in which the disaster was tackled. Everyone seemed to muck in. There was a great spirit of cooperation between neighbours, friends, ordinary citizens, and official and voluntary services.
I must not continue in as much detail as my notes contain. I want to say something about the question of finance. There has been some discussion as to what would be an undue burden on the rates. The highest figure suggested to me was 3d. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested that it might be ld. or 2d., and ruled out any possibility of 6d.—as I do.
I want to make a general point about the organisation and means of tackling this kind of emergency in the future. Financially, we have the Civil Contingencies Fund. I am not sure about the arguments of hon. Members who want to add to that a standing national disaster fund,


but I shall leave that point for the moment. It seems to me that we could now begin to think of something in the material sphere comparable to the Civil Contingencies Fund in the financial sphere—perhaps a civil contingencies drill. Men and material are needed and we know, broadly speaking, what kind of men and materials they are because of the kind of emergency to which we are prone.
The "Torrey Canyon" disaster was out of the ordinary. Most emergencies arise from flood, fire, or tempest, and we know that we shall normally need additional medical help and will have to deal with problems of homeless families and damage to property. After it and during it we know that we shall have some ticklish compensation problems to settle. We might now begin to think out some kind of drill in respect of a pool of labour. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out the complexity of the problem of shifting workers of one type from what they are doing to another job. That is why we should be working out this organisation now. We should be trying to lay down some guide lines in order to test them out in the next emergency.
The same is true of materials. Broadly speaking, we can guess what kind of materials will be needed and we can suggest a drill for bringing additional materials from, say, the South of England to another part of the country, and so on.
Financial payments could also be dealt with in the same way. My right hon. Friend was talking about the scheme devised for Glasgow, and which will be put into effect for other towns. If the scheme works well it should be retained not merely on the files; it should become part of our contingency planning for this kind of disaster, so that when the next emergency occurs it will not be merely a question of finding finance from the contingency fund or disaster fund; there should be, within the competence and knowledge of the Government, a certain number of standard steps which can be fairly quickly put into operation. Many ticklish problems of the allocation and transfer of workers and the sharing out of scarce materials could be settled in principle well beforehand.

9.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The debate has demonstrated what a wild trail of damage came the whole way across Scotland on the night in question. I endorse what the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm Macpherson) said, namely, how fortunate it was that it came in the early hours of the morning. About £2 million-worth of damage was suffered in the County of Fife, and the county council told me that it suffered damage costing £500,000. There are two other large burghs, a university and many hospital buildings, so the trail of damage was considerable.
There is some doubt about how much shortage of building materials there is, and I wonder whether the Scottish Office could list what is or is not available. Farmers told me that there was a shortage of asbestos sheets. After inquiries through the trade in the South, it seemed to me that certain sizes were in short supply and that for one size there was a waiting period of six or eight weeks. If people know how long it will take to get certain goods, they will know whether to wait or to substitute other goods and get on with the repairs. The Scottish Office could do this.
We might consider carefully the type of buildings which we put up. Far instance, the new Victoria Hospital, which the right hon. Gentleman opened last summer—a brand new building—suffered considerable damage and broken windows. Steps should be taken to see whether the style and type of our buildings meets the circumstances for which they are designed.
Many hon. Members have spoken about insurance. I wonder whether storm damage of local authority houses can be so easily written off, as it appears to have been, as something which local authorities should not insure against. That produces an anomaly, in that the prudent householder who insures is also paying for what the local authority has not done.
Without being too pessimistic, all the experience—particularly in the Caribbean and the United States—shows that we seem to be getting many more hurricanes than previously. Therefore, it is not enough to say that, if something stood up this time, everything will be all


right because there will not be another storm like this for 100 years. We might have another in a few years. Unless we thoroughly review our precautions it will not be a question of what this calamity has cost but what the cost may be if another storm follows hard on the trail of this one.
For the farming community. there is the difficulty of removing large hardwood trees which have fallen on farming land. When large trees have blown down, the difficulties are great, but at least a major contractor can be brought in and a salvage operation put in hand and a lot of timber taken away usefully, but when a farmer has perhaps 20 trees littering his land, no merchant will shift these butts so that he can get on with his cultivation. I have suggested that the Department of Agriculture should buy several mobile cranes which it could hire out to individual farmers to lift trees and put them by the roadside, where they could be collected and sold to a merchant. I hope that this can be considered, since otherwise I see no means of getting these big butts, which are lying all over arable fields, taken away.
This debate shows that, with a united effort on behalf of everyone, there is no doubt that we can minimise the effects of the storm, but it will require a strong and severe effort from everyone.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I was extremely glad to be able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) an opportunity to speak for a few minutes—not only because, like many other hon. Members, he had sat all day hoping to get in, but because I know that he personally suffered a great deal during the storm.
This has been perhaps the most remarkable debate on Scottish affairs in the House in my time. It has been almost a lull after a storm. I think that the House would wish, as many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have said, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who opened the debate, not only for having decided that this was the right thing to do but particularly for the careful, analytical speech which he made, bringing out the various points which seemed to him,

after his visit to Scotland, to need thought and consideration.
Although I was not in Scotland at the time, perhaps we were fortunate that the gale struck at that hour in the morning. I shudder to think, on reviewing the damage in the countryside and the towns, what the death toll might have been if a lot of traffic had been on the roads and people had been in the streets. This reinforces the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that we should be careful to discover if a method exists to warn of storms of this severity and to relay warnings rapidly to the points of greatest danger. Television is often being watched in homes, and radios are frequently played in cars. It would be possible to get news of pending storms of this violence to people, and while we hope that storms of this magnitude will be rare, we cannot be certain of that. It should be part of our emergency drill to make people aware of impending danger. Great danger may be in store if a disaster of this type should occur again.
Argyll was in the face of the gale, but in some ways my constituency was luckier in that the number of houses damaged was not as great as the number damaged in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Nevertheless, with a coastline such as Argyll has, which is exposed to gales of this ferocity, serious damage is bound to occur. Oban and Dunoon suffered considerable damage and much of what the Secretary of State said about help being given to local authorities in these affairs will be useful to them. That is particularly so in places where many private houses were damaged. but I will return to that subject later.
As yet, I have no co-ordinated picture of the damage to farming in my constituency. This is not unnatural, both because of the size of the constituency and the disruption caused to communications. However, I know a considerable number of people who suffered great losses.
There are some curious results of this disaster; like the silting up of the harbour at Easdale. Not only cannot ships get in but a number of boats which were inside the harbour are still there and cannot get out. Even if the weather turns good, the fishermen have a dreary immediate future because they cannot get out


might consider this matter. I understand that the Department possessed a dredger, wich was used in the fishing ports of Scotland. If that dredger is available and could be used to do an emergency quick clearance job on this harbour, my constituents would be exceedingly pleased.
Typical of the damage was that caused at the top of Loch Etive to a jetty which was not extensively used but which, we were, and still are, hoping will be used increasingly for tourist excursions up the loch and around Glencoe. The jetty was completely blown away. On a matter of priorities, I accept that this cannot rank very high in a national disaster of this kind. However, damage of this type is a perfect example of how the Army could be used. In the past we have used sappers to build airstrips. Perhaps this damage in my constituency could provide a good training exercise for a branch of the Armed Forces to build a jetty, which would be of extreme value.
We, like others in Scotland, have been worried not just with the effects of one gale, but with the continuing gales and heavy rain which we have had since this disaster occurred.
Let me now try to bring together some of the main arguments that seem to me to have come out of the debate but which have not yet been dealt with, so that it may help the Secretary of State to give us answers, and some indication of the way in which the Scottish Office intends to lead the Scottish people in facing the real problems that this disaster has brought about.
Throughout the debate there has been an underlying realisation of the fears of people in some areas of Glasgow that the chimney heads are a threat of danger with a killing potential. My right hon. Friend asks specifically, and his idea was echoed by many other hon. Members, whether some action could not be taken immediately and urgently to deal with the smoke control areas. It would then be possible, as he said, to abolish a very large number of chimney heads, if not all of them, and so help to solve two problems at the same time. Local authorities and private individuals might be prepared to give up some of their insistence on their rights of public inquiry, and so on, if they felt it was for the greater need of Glasgow at this time. I hope that the point will be very carefully considered.
I must say that I was disappointed that the Secretary of State was not able to give more information about finance. I know that it is only a little more than three weeks since the disaster struck, but I am certain from everything that has been said on both sides that hon. Members are getting large numbers of letters from constituents who want to know what their position is and how they will be helped.
We had heard from the Secretary of State—although I gather from my hon. Friends that it was not always understood—of a £500,000 loan to cover the immediate needs of local authorities in meeting the first essential commitments. The House welcomed that news at the time. We said that we appreciated that it was just the first instalment—as, indeed, the Secretary of State indicated it had to be with the sort of figures he was talking about in relation to the total damage in Scotland; a total that may be considerably exceeded by the time all the different pieces of information are collected and correlated.
I am quite certain, however, that on both sides there is a feeling that while it may be right to be as generous as the Secretary of State hopes to be to local authorities, there is a basic injustice in giving a grant of 75 per cent. or more to local authorities for their damaged houses while leaving a large range of people in private houses—some of them in circumstances such as the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and many other speakers have described—in the position that, as private owners, they must, in the words of the Secretary of State, in the long run pay out the full amount of all expenses incurred by them or on their behalf.
It is, of course, a help if, through local authority agencies, this expenditure can be spread in some way, and these private owners do not have to repay in a lump sum but in instalments, but, basically, I do not believe that the House or Scotland will feel satisfied if a very large number of people, some of whom have suffered a very severe loss in relation to their income or earnings, are left to carry the whole burden themselves. Their position would be made enormously worse if they not only had to carry the whole of their own loss in a disaster of


this sort but were also expected to bear some measure of an increased rate in order to pay for damage towards which the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, is to give a 75 per cent. grant as well. I hope the Secretary of State will look at this whole problem of finance urgently and see whether a good deal more can be done in some way or another to help people whose losses have been outrageous in relation to their resources.
The next point which came through clearly from the debate and which is of the greatest importance is that this is a major problem for skilled labour in Scotland today. My right hon. Friend asked whether we could draw supplies of skilled labour from across the Border. The Secretary of State said this was already being done. When he was asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) how many had come, there was—perhaps inadvertently—some considerable reticence. It will be necessary, and it is immediately necessary, to get the maximum number from England and other parts of Scotland not affected by the storm as quickly as possible.
Everyone, and I am sure the Secretary of State is as much aware of this as any of us, realises that it is most important to get permanent repairs to roofs done as fast as is humanly possible, because with gales and high winds still likely over the next two or three months, unless we get permanent repairs done, the damage will continue and be much worse. I hope that we shall be assured by the Minister of State that every possible source of labour and the skills particularly needed will be tapped to help in this very serious problem.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) mentioned the value in the period immediately after the storm of a few units from the Army who had the necessary skill to get on to roofs and do immediate repairs there. He said this was an area which is rather sensitive because the trade unions might feel it an undesirable development. I think everyone in the House will agree that, when dealing with the sort of situation there is in Glasgow now, this is no time for any trade union to be sensitive about things of that sort. We need the highest possible productivity from the

largest possible number of skilled men. If we have to bring in specialists from the Army or elsewhere, I am confident that the Scottish trade unions will not object. If they do, the entire Scottish nation will overrule them.
The problem of materials is important. The Secretary of State, who is generally well-briefed on these things, was a little less accurate than sometimes when in his statement to the House he referred to slates. I shall not pull him up on that.

Mr. Ross: I said that they are indestructible.

Mr. Noble: I am certain that when he made the remark he had not had to try to reslate a roof with slates which had fallen off or had been taken from other roofs. That is not an easy operation. There are problems in the supply of materials, but this is the sort of operation in which, if the Government have the necessary information and the necessary drive, they can do a good deal to make certain that material flows quickly through to the areas which need it.
I was interested, as very hon. Member will have been, in the speeches of those hon. Members who became slightly philosophical about Glasgow's whole housing problem, past and future. Unless houses are dangerous or seriously substandard I do not believe that we can afford the policy which the hon. Member for Shettleston appeared to be advocating. I do not believe that this is a moment when we can put bulldozers in and knock down a large number of houses. Even if they have only five or six years' life left, in this situation we shall probably have to repair them, if the cost of repair is not unreasonable. There are no other houses into which the displaced people could be decanted.
One of the significant points made by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) was that the Building Research Station is presented with a very good opportunity to study the effects of really high winds on different types of structure. I have no doubt that we shall go on building houses of different types all over Scotland. We heard about the new houses in Livingston which had been damaged. We heard about the temporary houses in North Lanark whose roofs had been blown off.
Many hon. Members have given examples of the type of housing which was damaged.

Mr. Eadie: Was not an alteration made in the 1950s to the amount of damage that the structure of houses was required to withstand?

Mr. Noble: That may well be. I would not like to be dogmatic about that. This is an opportunity to study what winds can do. if the building regulations need altering, they can be altered and local authorities and private owners can be given the best available advice, because, whatever else is certain, we know for sure that before many years pass we shall have another gale, perhaps nearly as severe as this one.
All hon. Members welcomed the tremendously good work done by the Civil Defence, the Territorials and the voluntary services. I support the plea that the Government should bear this in mind when thinking about the future of these services, because it is difficult to contemplate how we should face emergencies such as this, with all the good will which is always shown by people at times like these, without an adequate number of pained people to guide and lead and bring the efforts to the best results.
Has the Minister of State considered the problem of caravanners? Caravans are not exactly buildings. I do not know what category they come into. I have written one or two letters to the Secretary of State about this matter. In my constituency a number of people are living in caravans, perhaps because they are working in an area where there are not many council houses. They have put all their savings into buying the caravans. All that has gone. These like small owner-occupiers, are very hard luck cases and something should be done to help them.
Much has been said about the problems of the countryside. Though I do not in any way distrust the Secretary of State's belief that the Scottish Office can be flexible where the relevant statutes are fairly clear, he is at the moment in the fortunate position of having an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill going through the House. He introduced a new Clause to it not long ago. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be only too willing to help him if he wanted to

introduce another new Clause empowering him to give assistance in agriculture for the correction of storm damage where the existing statutes do not already empower him to do so. He will have very willing support from this side of the House if he wants to do it. Although one can be flexible to a certain extent, there are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, people who examine only too carefully whether the Secretary of State is spending money properly. This is, therefore, a useful opportunity for him.
I doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman thinks adequate for the glasshouse growers will prove adequate. He has said that only 4 per cent. of the glass is damaged, but it is not every owner of a glasshouse who has lost 4 per cent. Certain people have been severely hit, and there are grounds for thinking that, unless a good deal more can be made available, perhaps in the form of grants and loans, as will be necessary for ordinary houses, too, I believe, many of these people will be unable to start their business again. I hope that a good deal of thought will be given to that matter.
Several of my hon. Friends have stressed the importance of the damage in forestry, damage not only to the trees themselves but damage to the income and capital of the people who grew and owned them. Many sensible suggestions have been made. I am certain that the windblow action group—I am not sure that I like the initials "W.A.G." for this body—will study what has been said in the House, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will do his best to see that the recommendations which the group bring forward are translated immediately into effect.
One piece of information which I have not heard given to the House is that Thames Board Mills has issued a statement saying that it is prepared to take a greatly increased amount of sawn logs to get its mill going at full capacity over the next two weeks. This is a good example of help from across the Border. Naturally, the company hopes that the extra paper and board it produces will find a ready market in this country, and it is prepared to take the risk of building up large stocks of timber in order to help in this crisis.
It will be vital in the next week or two to produce a guide for the people of


Scotland about the claims which they have and where they can obtain the information they need. The information should be detailed right the way through. It would not, I hope, be a complicated White Paper type of operation. It need be no more than a simple statement of facts and guidance for householders, tenants, owner-occupiers, farmers, foresters, and glasshouse owners, giving a summary of what they can do and how they can get help. I hope that, by the end of that time, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to be more generous in his outlook than he has been able to be today.
Hon. Members who have spoken, and those who have been in Scotland, have seen the energy and initiative shown by the Scottish Office as a whole in dealing with the immediate crisis. I have been critical in the past when we had shipping strikes and I could not induce Ministers to come and visit my constituency. This time, Ministers covered the area quickly and effectively, and the Scottish Office backed them to the full. But this was the immediate period of the storm. The long haul is now starting.
There is an enormous amount to be done. It is a daunting task, which will take all the energy and initiative of the Ministers and staff of the Scottish Office and, I dare say, many English Ministries, in order to pull out quickly from the effects of the disaster, as we must. As long as the Scottish team are seen to be doing this, they will get the support of the House, as they have all through the debate. If they seem to be lagging, the whole House will begin kicking.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): This has been quite an extraordinary debate, particularly with so many Scotsmen taking part, for its non-political character. Occasionally the old Adam, and sometimes even a little bit of Eve, came out now and then, but essentially it has been a remarkable self-denying ordinance that we have imposed on ourselves. It is a tribute to the House that it has risen to the occasion and treated the matter as a real national emergency calling for constructive comment. That was exemplified by the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition, for which

every hon. Member on this side of the House is very grateful.
Dealing first with the constituency point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) I can tell him that we shall look at once into the question of the Easdale harbour. The answers to a large number of the questions asked about forestry tonight will emerge in their policy consequences from the Report of the Committee, whether we call it W.A.G., T.A.G. or whatever it may be. I am very glad that the Committee is made up not just of the Scottish organisations but of the English organisations, which emphasises the essential importance of solving the problem of the wind blow on a British scale. I have noted the point of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) that the voluntary cessation of tree-felling that accompanied the 1953 disaster affecting forestry may well be repeated. Since his personal concern was not so badly affected, he will no doubt want to apply a voluntary restraint on himself.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of investment grants. We must consider this in the general context of the Government's policy. He must admit, in all fairness, that while forestry has not received the investment grants it is relevant that forestry production is exempted from Capital Gains Tax, and the long-term nature of forestry operations is recognised in the taxation provisions. Private forestry is also eligible for individual refunds of Selective Employment Tax, including refunds to contractors engaged in forestry activities. I take one of the right hon. Gentleman's other points, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, and we are looking at the rate of planting grant.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the Minister considering this in relation to the whole country or just the areas specifically hit by the storm damage?

Dr. Mabon: At this stage I should not like to say. It is important that Ministers allow the Action Group, in which we have a lot of confidence, to get ahead. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tried to outline all its points of reference today. It has seven factual references to which there must be answers to give to Ministers, and from


them there will be a number of options which Ministers can take on policy matters. The hon. Gentleman outlined several and advanced one new one. The Government will certainly look at the debate very closely and see the various recommendations made. Some are mutually exclusive; some Members made recommendations with which others disagreed. But we want to examine each suggestion and see whether it is valid in the context of the problem. I should not like to spend any more time on forestry, except to say that we are anxious to receive the recommendations from the Action Group.
If I may turn for a moment to agriculture, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) mentioned that a farmer had told him that he could not get grants for the replacement of farm buildings and fences erected with the Farm Improvement Scheme grant but destroyed in the gale. I am assured by the Department that this is not quite right. The cost of replacement, less insurance, will again rank for F.I.S. grant. This also goes for buildings under construction destroyed by the gale. If any farmer has not put in al application because he is under this misapprehension he should certainly do so immediately. We have given instructions to local officials and made this point quite specifically to them.
May I say this in relation to a number of other matters that I may touch upon, not necessarily affecting agriculture. I only wish that Ministers were given the se me publicity on facts like this as they are when some of the criticisms are made in the popular Press. I can only rely on hon. Members opposite and my own hon. Friends, if Ministers do not get this publicity, to try to make this point. These matters affect the lives and livings of people. It is very bad if we cannot get this across to our people—not something that we are arguing about but something that has been settled and is of assistance. I should be grateful if misapprehensions that are cleared up in this debate can be cleared up elsewhere by hon. Members making sure that all those with whom they come into contact are given the facts.

Mr. W. Baxter: Could my hon. Friend not utilise the medium of television to tell of the Government's policy in this respect?

Dr. Mahon: I got seven minutes one night and eight minutes another night. I cannot remember exactly how often the television authorities will let us on, but I am prepared to sit for two hours, for as long as I can, but I doubt whether the television companies would allow me. I am certain that all Scottish Ministers would be prepared to appear on television and to give interviews to the Press to get this point over, and I hope that television and the Press are listening.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned the very sad case of the young man at Burnhead Nursery and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has already visited the gentleman concerned, I think on 24th January. What I would suggest is that if we could get the full application in the normal way, within the remit as it stands, we will get an inspector out to go over the application and discuss this and we will see how far we can go with this matter.
I take the point that we do not want to be inflexible in these matters, but there are times when statute gets in the way, and we might well take into account some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding remarks, despite the fact that we may be involved in Money Resolutions. I should not like to promise anything about that because it is extremely complex and we might be able to settle many of these problems in an entirely different way.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) asked about the cost of repairs with reference to the profit and loss accounts. Quite apart from the example he gave, this is a very important question and I am advised that the individual farmers concerned ought to approach their local tax inspectors and get this quite clear. As we understand it, in the usual way any work assisted by the Farm Improvement Scheme or the Horticulture Import Scheme is clearly of a capital investment nature and ought for tax purposes to be considered in that category, written-off over a period of years.
The hon. Lady for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) mentioned a dairy farmer losing cash income because bulk containers were out of action as a result of power failure. I cannot go into all the circumstances now. I have a lengthy note here from the Milk Marketing Board.


She will readily appreciate that it did its best in most difficult circumstances, observing, of course, public health laws. I think that everyone was very appreciative of the good humour and understanding, not just of the men who drove the lorries, but of the men who operated the depôts and bases from which the work was done.
I agree with her criticism that farmers do not know about much of the help available. We have tried in Press notices on the 22nd and 24th January to make the matters raised concerning both schemes known as much as possible. We expect farmers to turn for information to the local offices of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. These local offices have been instructed to help farmers in every way they can to ensure that they know as much as possible about the present position.
I turn to some of the major points made in the debate. The right hon. Member for Bexley mentioned the inadequate warning of the gale. I commend to his attention—I am sure that he has read it but perhaps he will want to refresh his memory about it—the Answer which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force gave to one of my hon. Friends on 19th January. He will see that it was extremely difficult for the best meteorological talent available to predict this very peculiar and unique change in circumstance. My hon. Friend said:
This effect was probably heightened locally by the topography of the Forth and Clyde valleys".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 707.]
I accept that many lessons can be learned from our experience, and not merely lessons concerning the Building Research Station. We have a great deal to learn from the gale and its consequences on different fabrics and styles of building. But there is the point—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) mentioned it—that the topography of the valleys and of the cities and constituencies affected might well have played a part in determining the kind of damage done.
Some claim that certain kinds of houses suffered peculiarly badly. Some say that modern houses were badly affected. Some-

one referred to jerry-built houses of the 1950s. Some say that buildings badly affected were prefabricated dwellings, or old tenements which should have been condemned 10 or 20 years ago, or well-maintained tenements because of the very heavy sandstone chimneys, some of which the Leader of the Opposition saw. I heard his interview on television in which he described the heavy weight of the chimneys and of cases in which the sandstone had been bricked together at the base and had fractured and caused the damage which he described.
All I am saying is that there are other elements to be considered other than the fabric of buildings. For instance, there is the climatic character of the hurricane and its impact on housing. I have been told that the multi-storey buildings can withstand a gale of 350 miles per hour, but I should not like to be in a multi-storey building during a gale of half that force. Nevertheless, it is a consolation to know that some tests have been done on modern buildings in these circumstances.
I turn to the survey of chimney heads. I agree with the right hon. Member for Argyll that this is a very important matter. The Master of Works in Glasgow and the burgh surveyors in other towns have been very busy and have been constantly surveying building—not only obviously damaged buildings, but buildings about which there has been doubt. Ultimately, there will have to be an examination of all buildings. No one knows what latent damage to the structure may have occurred after this winter has passed and perhaps long after the hurricane has been forgotten. We must have a survey made of the buildings and particularly of the chimney heads.
I accept that we could demolish many more chimney heads than is at present contemplated. Half of Glasgow is already under smoke control regulations. Some local authorities, like Dumbarton, have not hesitated but have simply put in gas-fired appliances and have not bothered to replace chimney heads. That may not sound very democratic. It may not allow for the public inquiry process and may not suit everybody. The electricity board may even be offended. But there comes a point when we must put aside some of the niceties in order to get ahead with dealing with the implicit danger to life which many chimney heads


represent. I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about this matter. We underlined that not only to Glasgow but to many other authorities which have been acting very quickly.
There was one other point which the right hon. Gentleman made which we very much appreciate, and that was his comment about vacant tenement houses. Up to the present time, generally speaking, the local authorities have rehoused most of the homeless. Of course, there are still many people who are homeless and are having to live with their in-laws and other relatives and friends. In some cases we are trying to get in touch with people so that we may know where they are and know what to do for them, when it may not be possible for them to go back to their own homes.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), was that property owners' associations in the different cities and burghs might be able to ask property owners who have in their possession houses which are vacant to make them available for the rehousing of people who have no homes, and who may have to wait a considerable time to get into proper homes even if they are ever able to get back to their homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) asked about the Glasgow scheme, that is, the scheme which we are seeking to finance with £500,000—and that, I regret to say, has not been fully appreciated, even in this debate, or by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I will return to this in a moment. The Glasgow scheme, as it is called, of course should be followed by other county councils, other cities, other burghs similarly affected. Indeed, we are trying to encourage them to do so, and some authorities have already done so. In the Circular of 26th January we asked that they should look at this very closely and follow the procedures we have outlined in the model scheme. These are not as difficult as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) thought. They are streamlined and can work very rapidly, despite their apparent complexity. I would commend them very strongly to hon. Members who may be faced with this problem in their con-

stituencies and where local authorities have not subscribed to this sort of scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) mentioned laggard property owners, as he called them—that is to say, those property owners who are reluctant to go ahead with repairs. All I can say to him, if it is true that some property owners are dragging their feet in this regard—and if they are I am surprised at them, because it is in their own economic interests not so to do—is to draw attention to the local authorities' statutory power under Sections 11 and 12 of the 1966 Act which allow them to compel owners to have house repairs done. I say frankly to him that I think that they should use this power if there is a genuine case of property owners not being willing to go ahead.
I turn to the repair of private houses outside Glasgow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) dealt with this also. We would like to encourage this in counties even though the number of damaged houses in the counties is not quite as large in proportion as in Glasgow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen asked about owner-occupiers being relieved of the cost of demolition of houses so damaged as to be uninhabitable. If an owner is unable to pay demolition costs which the local authority has incurred, the local authority may purchase the land compulsorily and pay the difference, if any, between the value of the land and the cost of demolition. In this we are acting under Section 23 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966. This is in the extreme instance of where we have to abandon a house permanently. I am sorry to say that in the last week we have had to abandon a number of houses—in my own constituency, over 100—because temporary repairs have proved insufficient to strengthen the houses to stand up to the gales which have succeeded the great hurricane, the central subject of this debate.
As to advice, local authorities should be giving advice locally on this matter, and some have done exceptionally well, but I really would urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to make sure that their local authorities are providing —at advice centres themselves, or through citizens' advice bureaux or the


Women's Voluntary Services—advice to their people.
On the question of the release of contractors from penalty clauses, although we cannot override the law on this matter, we are appealing to town councils, county councils and new town corporations and many private individuals not to enforce penalty clauses against contractors who want to release labour temporarily for these purposes. We have had a singularly favourable response. We know of no instance where anyone has been difficult about it, provided that the circumstances were explained fully and clearly.
On reported shortages, most of the shortages which we have encountered have been overtaken. We have had an official in the Ministry of Public Building and Works solely concerned with ensuring that local shortages of zinc ridging and other roofing materials were overcome. If there are shortages in any area, I hope that the hon. Members concerned will refer the local authority to the Ministry of Public Building and Works or to the Scottish Office, who will deal with the matter.
Mention has been made of the shortage of cut glass. The Ministry of Public Building and Works has been assured by Pilkington's, the suppliers, that there is plenty of glass in standard sizes. Again, if there are local difficulties, I hope that the grower, the contractor, or the hon. Member concerned will contact the local office of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Similarly, with the shot Cage of slates, I am told that quarries in North-West England and Wales are giving priority to demands from Scotland.
In relation to damage to property under construction, liability for such damage will depend on the terms of the contract. Under the R.I.B.A. standard form of contract which we have been urging local authorities to use, there is specific provision to cover storm damage during the construction period.
The Ministry of Social Security has been very good in what it has done in Scotland so far. I am much indebted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for her personal intervention at times when events were getting to a difficult stage. We have had excellent co-operation from her Ministry, and I intend to take to

her one or two of the suggestions which were made during the debate about the further use of the Ministry in relation to the operation of the scheme affecting the repair of private properties.
I am sure that everyone would agree that, to a large extent, the confusion has been about the £500,000 which has been mentioned. The primary purpose of that sum was to help the local authorities pay workmen for doing repairs on private properties. It had nothing to do with helping local authorities to get on with their own work. That is a matter which we shall come to when we know the estimates. It was to make sure that we did not ask private owners to pay bills for which they had no insurance money, or, alternatively, immediately to find the difference between what was needed and what they received from their insurance companies. Nor were we willing to see small builders, contractors and slaters having large overdrafts which they could not service. The money is to pay the workmen for doing the work. Later on, we will look at the overall reckoning.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head, struck the most important note of all in relation to being cautionary over these matters. When we first looked into them, the estimates were of the order of £3 million. Today, they are of the order of £30 million. Everyone has commented about this, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). They have all said that we do not know the full extent of the damage and, therefore, we cannot anticipate how we are to work out the full financial consequences. Someone suggested making lump sum grants either to the local authorities or to individuals or to both. I could think of no worse way of dealing with it than by lump sum grants.
Take a person who has insured regularly for 10 years, as against another person who has never insured. Do we repay the premiums for 10 years as well as reimbursing the £15 that may be lost by the prudent person under the contract, as well as reimbursing the other?
Another suggestion was give them all £15. I am assured that, if one takes each tenement in Glasgow as having an average of 10 houses, the Chairman of the Property Owners' Association has estimated that the maximum cost to owner-


occupiers would be of the order of £25 to £30. Therefore this is not in itself the answer, but I take the point that there may be cases where even such a small sun may be more than an old-age pensioner could possibly bear.
That is why I come back to the point about the Ministry of Social Security on subsequent matters of repayment, or it may be that this will be a matter which we shall consider at a later stage with the local authorities, once their servicing of the scheme has shown that they cannot, with the best will in the world, recover the cost without causing extreme hardship to individuals. This is a matter which will have to be tackled in that way. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the most important section of his speech:
The Government are resolved that in the end of the day no local authority will have to bear an undue additional rate burden as a result of the storm. My assessment is that this may well involve Exchequer assistance running into millions of £s rather than hundreds of thousands.
It is very important that whatever we decide is with an eye on those whom we can help best of all and not in simply taking a leap, a guess, at it without having all the facts available.
As I say, we are in constant touch with authorities over this matter and, as my right hon. Friend said, we shall, authority by authority, seek to examine the commitments as they have arisen on them and then be able to make a distinct choice to how and in what way they should be aided from the national purse.

Dr. Miller: I know my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but when he is considering various suggestions, will he consider the possibility of some form of compulsory insurance in tenancies to insure the personal effects of people? It is tragic how little insurance working people carry for their personal effects. I am told that for a matter of 6d. a week one can be insured for about £500.

Dr. Mabon: This is a very difficult matter. I know that some authorities are pointing out to their tenants that, in the case of fire, many who lose all their possessions are quite unaware that for a small sum they could have insured them against fire. Whether that should be made

compulsory by the local authorities on their tenants, I should not like to say at this juncture. Certainly, in private tenanted property it would be difficult for landlords to place this condition on them. In the case of mortgages under Government and building society schemes, it is always a condition that the mortgagor insures not only the property, but its contents, against fire and tempest.
I have very little time left. I merely want to sum up in this way. I would have liked to have made reference to improvement of old houses which will be following from the Cullingworth Report which was submitted to the Secretary of State last year. This matter may be discussed in the House at some time.
I would have liked to make comments on the complexity of insurance, which I agree is a matter of difficulty.
I would have liked to have said something about labour. I have hinted that we are already working on this; that is to say, bringing labour not only from unaffected parts of Scotland, but also from parts of England. We look to England to a large extent to provide us with the skilled building labour that we need to help us repair the damage which has been done. Local authorities are being encouraged to ask in various towns in England for this kind of assistance.
The Secretary of State is a West of Scotland man—he does not have the good fortune to be a Glaswegian—but I was proud to be with him in the reception centre in Shettleston when he asked one lady, "Do they treat you well here? Are you all right? Are they good to you?", and she said, "Aye. great. I will hook up for next year". Let us pray that there is never a next year. But let us be grateful to the warm-hearted, good-natured people who have risen so splendidly to this national calamity and have worked, every one of them, so hard to try to get us over the difficulties on to the road to recovery. I think that we in the House of Commons have exemplified this need for all to pull together at this time. I am grateful to the House for the reception it has given to this debate.

Mr. Harry Gourlay (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LABELLING OF FOOD REGULATIONS

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Labelling of Food Regulations 1967 (SI., 1967, No. 1864), dated 14th December 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be annulled.
Although this Prayer has to be for the annulment of the Regulations, my primary purpose in moving it is to provide an opportunity for discussion, because we have been awaiting these Labelling Regulations for a very long time. Now that they have come they are so comprehensive, and indeed complicated, that it seems wrong that they should go through without discussing some of the more important points. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we now have these Regulations.
I congratulate the Ministry and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, with whom I have had a dialogue over recent years, on the whole subject, and on their courage in bringing forward these Regulations. It takes courage to enter the realm of labelling and advertising, which has a mystique of its own, and which is even more complex than that of women's fashions, and other complex subjects.
Labelling is not simply informative. It can be a matter of glamour with regard to things like toilet preparations. It can be a matter of status with regard to some of the more exotic foods. It can be regarded as an art, and indeed it is. In many labelling departments of firms which I have visited, I have found that it has its devotees who are very much concerned if a label is produced in a way which to them is unthinkable, but which to the general public does not mean anything very much.
Because this subject is complex, because it has its own ritual, it is important that the public should be protected by the labelling being as informative as possible. This is the whole purpose of these Regulations.
One of our difficulties in a matter of this kind is to ascertain what the consumer really wants. We have a limited

number of consumer organisations, but we have no means of measuring what the ordinary shopper in the street, if I may use that expression, wants when she—because it is usually a woman—goes shopping and looks at the goods on the shelves. I suppose that Members of Parliament have as good an idea as any through the correspondence that we receive from our constituents, and those who are perhaps rather more concerned with consumer matters get a considerable correspondence on these points.
It is because of this difficulty of weighing up what the consumer wants that we should pay particular attention when organised consumers, for example, the Consumer Council, put forward points on matters of this kind. I share the concern which the Consumer Council has expressed about the complicated requirements in regard to the size of lettering to be used on the label. The food manufacturers have made the same point, and. since the Consumer Council's complaint is based on consumer surveys, I think we must give some weight to it.
In the Food Labelling Bill which I have sought to introduce on a number of occasions, it is proposed that the lettering should be in legible block letters of equal size, conspicuously visible. This may not be very wonderful wording, but at least it is easy to understand, and one would think that something on these lines was preferable to the complicated requirements in the Regulations. I shall not say any more about that because I know that other Members wish to speak on it in more detail.
There are two smaller points to which I want to refer. The first concerns the exemption of very small containers from the labelling requirements. I appreciate the difficulty of making regulations to fit these small containers. Nevertheless some important goods may be exempted in this way which do not give the consumer the full cover and protection that he or she should have and where foods contain an ingredient made from two or more constituents and the
permitted preservative or permitted antioxidant is present… in a proportion of less than 5 per cent. (calculated on the weight of the ingredients of the amount permitted".
by earlier regulations the presence of that preservative or antioxidant need not be


stated. Although this is a very small proportion it does not pay any attention to any known or possible cumulative effect of additives. This may be a serious exemption from the Regulations.
There are two points on which I feel strongly and upon which I know, judging from my correspondence, that consumers also feel strongly. One concerns meat. I am glad that the Regulations make provision for tenderised meat being so labelled. I would have welcomed the Ministry's grappling with the vexed question of meat which has been produced from animals and poultry which have been intensively reared. There is a growing demand from consumers for this to be indicated in butchers' and poulterers' stops. This demand will develop considerably in the next three years, so that by the time the Regulations come into force they may be out of date in this respect.
Similarly, with fruit and vegetables, there is no requirement to disclose whether fruit has been treated with accelerators, or whether vegetables and fruit have been sprayed with certain insecticides which may be considered harmful. Here again, public opinion is racing ahead on this point.
Recently, the Soil Association has announced that it has made arrangements for fruit and vegetables which are free from treatment of this kind to be on sale arid presumably they will be labelled as such, so that in self-defence greengrocers may be compelled to adopt their own system of labelling. It would seem preferable for these new points to be covered in the Regulations, which will be with us for a long time.
My main concern about the Regulations relates to Regulation 1(a), which covers cyclamates. This Regulation has been in operation from the beginning of this year, but it is not generally appreciated by the public—who have been very much concerned about the general permission to use cyclamates in food—that when they buy products containing cyclamates, consisting of any of the three kinds mentioned in the Regulations, or saccarin or other artificial sweeteners, they will not be able to see from the labelling which kind of artificial sweetener has been used. There will only be the generic term "artificial sweetener."
What is true of the artificial sweetener is true of preservatives, antioxidants, colouring, flavouring and all other additives. The specific name of the additive will not be on the label. There will be only the generic term "permitted preservative" and so on. The Minister argues that the generic term is preferable because it is easier for the general public to appreciate, and that specific names may be incomprehensible to the general public. This is true, of course, of many chemical names; they are very difficult to understand. But many people have allergies to particular substances and they are entitled to know from the label whether a product contains those substances or not. Other people may have objections to certain substances and they are also entitled to know whether goods contain those substances.
Cyclamates are a case in point. Partly because of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and other articles in the Press and our debate on the subject, the public have become aware of this additive and are wary of it, knowing that research on it is still going on. They have become so familiar with the word "cyclamate" that if they saw it on a label in any form they would recognise it.
The same is true of any other additive. Knowledge of these additives, which are being used increasingly in foods, is very limited. We think we know a lot, but in fact we know very little, and any time any one of them might become suspect. If it does, it should be readily identifiable on food labels by its specific name, so that the public may avoid that product if they so wish.
A great deal has been said, and I have no doubt will be said tonight, about the cost of these Regulations to food manufacturers. Undoubtedly, preparing new labels will be costly, but I discount the figures, excessive sums of £2 million or double that amount, which have been quoted by food manufacturers. Food production is a very competitive business and it has been known for several years that the Regulations were coming and there are three years more until they come into operation. In a competitive world, comparatively few food manufacturers, during that long time of five or six years, will not, in any case, have


intended to revise their labels. Labels are constantly being changed, without any Government Regulations forcing them to be changed.
During that time, I would have thought that many, if not most, food manufacturers would have been revising their labels and, at the same time, of course, complying with the Regulations. I would have hoped that, this being so, they would also have been encouraged by the Regulations to put in the specific names of additives instead of the generic term. They are permitted to do so, and, since the Regulations do not compel them, I hope that as many as possible will do voluntarily what the Government should have insisted on their doing mandatorily.
Although I have voiced some criticisms, I recognise that this subject is complex and that, whatever Regulations were introduced, there would be criticisms, since it is impossible to please all the interests concerned and it is an extremely delicate operation to try to balance the interests of the food manufacturer against those of the consumer in exactly the right way. Because of this, and because I believe that these Regulations, in spite of my criticisms, are a great step forward and will be extremely useful to the consumer, although I am praying to annul them, I have no intention of forcing that Prayer to a Division.
I wish to make it clear that if, by chance, a Division is forced, I shall vote in support of the Regulations because I regard them as being an advance. The only opportunity we have to secure any sort of discussion is by praying against the Regulations. It is a question of take them or leave them. I wish that we could improve them, but, since we cannot, I shall support them if a vote is forced.

10.16 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I am happy to speak following the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), although I was sorry to hear her say that while the Regulations could be improved, she would not be prepared to vote against them. I wish to make it clear at the outset that we do not object to new Amendments to the 1953 Act. As the hon. Lady said, there is a good case for making Amendments to cover cycla-

mates, additives and the like. Nevertheless, we have great objection to some of the proposals contained in these Regulations and, as a result of what will be said tonight, I trust that the Minister will decide to withdraw them, give the matter further consideration and, if he considers it necessary, reintroduce them at a subsequent date.
Last Friday I addressed a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which I asked what evidence he had received to indicate that there was any need for revised Regulations of this sort. He replied:
When the question of the revision of the Labelling of Food Order, 1953 was referred to the Food Standards Committee in 1961, the Order had already been amended five times and many requests had been received for further amendments, both general and specific. The Committee invited comments and representations. A very large number were received, the vast majority proposing amendments to the Order. The Committee took evidence in the course of their deliberations. When their report was published in 1964, and again following the publication of proposals for new regulations in 1965, further written and oral evidence was received, all of which has been considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 442–3–4.]
What was considered? The Minister did not say in that Answer that, as far as I know, at no stage during the drafting of these Regulations were the people responsible for the design and packaging of products properly consulted.
It is interesting to note that the Council for Industrial Design, a Government-sponsored body, and other design associations protested vigorously against an attempt to find an arithmetical, watertight formula to ensure that the housewife or purchaser has information "clearly and legibly" about the nature of any food product, such as a chocolate bar, breakfast cereal or a tin of Horlicks. To insist that the ingredients be presented next to the name block and be one-quarter the size of the largest printed matter—invariably the name of the product—is to insist on an inflexible yardstick which, while it may be of assistance to the enforcing authorities, will take away the freedom of manufacturers and traders to design and label their products within generally stated legal requirements for protecting consumers.
As far as I know, the Minister has produced no evidence to show that the change proposed in these Regulations is


in any way required by consumers. Has he at any time commissioned market research to discover whether the housewife requires this change? Has he put these proposals to any body of housewives or consumers? We know that he has not adequately consulted the design authorities—that even the Council of Industrial Design is opposed to this change, and this Council should be listened to because it is a body which depends a great deal on Government finance for its continuance.
As I say, the Consumer Council, another Government-sponsored body, has objected to these proposals. At least that Council has carried out research among housewives and consumers, but has found that the suggestions contained in the Regulations are, in its view, not required. Only yesterday I received a Press handout from the Consumer Council saying that it found the Regulations still very objectionable and hoped that the Minister would withdraw them.
In addition to those two bodies, both Government-sponsored, the proposed Regulations have been objected to by the Confederation of British Industry, the Food Manufacturers Federation, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the Society of Industrial Artists and Designers and the Institute of Packaging. As I have said, we do not oppose the Regulations in general, but we are bitterly opposed to these restrictions. Once more, I believe, it is a case of the man in Whitehall thinking that he knows what is best for the housewife when all he is doing is looking for an inflexible yardstick to help the enforcement officer and not the housewife. I believe that the Regulations will do the housewife a positive disservice.
As far as I know, no other country has indulged in, or has found it necessary to indulge in, such restrictive requirements as are here proposed. At this time above all, the British food manufacturer and exporter should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage because our packaging designers are so fettered with unnecessary Regulations—and Regulations, moreover, which will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I thought that the hon. Lady was a little naughty in suggesting that the figure of £2 million given by the food manufacturers was an over-estimate. It may

very well be an under-estimate, in spite of the fact that the manufacturers will have two or three years in which to make the changes, because not only will the Regulations, if the Government insist on them and the House accepts them, make the package far less appealing and attractive but they may result in manufacturers needing two packs, one for the home market, observing all these silly Regulations—and absolutely ruining the design —and another for export markets, thus losing a great sales aid in the identification of the product. We have only to think of the effect on Coca-Cola if the manufacturers had to have a different package in America from that used in the rest of the world. The whole idea is nonsense and should be recognised as such.
We in industry are not opposed to providing the housewife with a clear and legible statement of the ingredients and contents, but I ask the Minister: why should we handicap our exporters at this most crucial time when the economy is under strain and manufacturers should be encouraged in all their efforts to export more, and not saddled with a lot of theoretical mumbo-jumbo thought up by some civil servant out of touch with reality?
I appeal to the Minister to withdraw these Regulations, enter into further discussion with the people responsible for design and packaging, and then reintroduce Regulations with the offensive restrictions omitted. These are days of fierce competition, when the country's economy is in a very parlous state and dependent a great deal on export markets. A well-designed pack is an enormous aid to selling a product, and anything which inhibits a designer is serious and should not be tolerated unless a clear case can be made that the housewife is at the moment grossly deceived.
The present Regulations show a stupidity and an insanity which cannot be masked by the camouflage of the legalistic verbiage in which they have been presented. I therefore appeal to the Minister to believe that we are not opposed to providing all the help we can for the housewife to have proper information about the contents of products, but this Regulation insisting that next to the name block should be shown the contents. beginning with the word "containing",


and a quarter of the size of the largest printed matter, is nonsense.
The vast majority of the products to which these Regulations will apply are those that are bought once a week—it is not a question of deceiving people with Mars bars or Kellogg's Cornflakes. Housewives know what is in the package, and provided that somewhere on the package the contents are written clearly and legibly I think it is all the housewife requires. I strongly appeal to the Minister to have the courage to withdraw these Regulations and reintroduce them after further conversations with packaging designers.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for initiating this debate. She has a very wide knowledge of the need for consumer protection and has given a great deal of time and effort to the work of improving consumer protection. Like her, it is not my intention to press this Prayer to a Division because I believe we have a strong enough case to present to the Parliamentary Secretary to persuade him to adopt the course which I shall suggest.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), who said the Regulations are silly. Most of the Regulations are perfectly sound, reasonable and welcome. Only in one specific instance had the hon. Member a point. That was when he said that they could be a little better. I hope that the debate will not deteriorate into a party political battle between the two sides of the House, because I think the intention of all hon. Members will be to persuade the Minister to amend the Regulations at a future date. I do not believe it realistic to ask him to withdraw them, but it is realistic to ask him to consider certain aspects of them.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks was right in saying that a well designed pack is a great aid to selling and a great aid to our export market. I ought to declare an interest here because for many years I earned my living in the highly competitive field of merchandise presentation. I welcome the general aim of the Regulations, which is to improve and en-

hance consumer protection. There are a number of small points in which the Regulations could have been better. I should like to have seen a requirement for the liquid content of products to be specified on the label. I should like to have seen the alcoholic content to be by percentage by volume rather than by percentage of proof. I should have preferred, instead of complete meals, that the individual constituents of the complete meals should be stated on the labels. None of this information is on the labels and I hope that on future occasions the Minister will cover these points.
My main case deals with Part II, particularly Schedule 4. I have taken the trouble to contact a large number of bodies engaged in design work and selling. Overwhelmingly they are agreed on two things. They agreed without any dispute whatever that there is a clear need for clarity and legibility on each pack stating the contents of the product and the right name. This should be done in the interest of the consumer.
The second thing about which all agreed is on trying to relate the letter size of the appropriate designation to the largest letter on the pack. All agreed that this was unnecessary and restrictive. I agree on that. I contacted the Council of Industrial Design, whose members told me that they have written to the Minister expressing their views that this part of the Regulations will be difficult to operate and will inhibit design. They asked the Minister to reconsider it.
The Society of Industrial Artists and Designers told me that at no time in the consideration of the Regulations was the Society asked to give its views. I think that regrettable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that hon. Members opposite will not say "Hear, hear" too much or my hon. Friends will have more suspicion about me. I find it quite regrettable that the very body set up to bring together industrial designers and artists should not have been consulted on Regulations specifically aimed at trying to legislate for their work. I hope that in any future consultations the Minister will make absolutely certain that that body is consulted.
The Society told me that by trying to put these things into rigid wording one loses sight of what they call the laws of


visual perception. I do not understand very much about the laws of visual perception, but I certainly know that these Regulations in respect of the letter size will be difficult to apply. The Institute of Practical Advertising, of which the distinguished president sits on the benches opposite, is very much against the Regulations. The Society considers the Regulations complicated and rigid and that they should be completely withdrawn. I do not go all the way with the Society, but it has part of a case.
One organisation which I myself did not contact but which one of my hon. Friends contacted was the Co-operative Union, which believes that these Regulations in respect of lettering size will be restrictive and difficult to apply and will have an inhibiting effect on design. If My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), whom I consulted on this. is correct, the Co-operative Union believes that further consideration should be given to this matter.
We know that the Food Manufacturers Federation is against the Regulations. It claims that they will increase costs. I shall not develop that argument. It believes that the restriction on lettering size will have a very bad effect on the production of good, attractive and informative design work on packages. The many other organisations which I contacted held similar views. In all the inquiries that I made not one voice was raised in defence of Regulation No. 17. The only voices that I heard which were even slightly in favour of it were those of my right hon. Friend the Minister and some of the gentlemen with him when I had the pleasure of having an interview with him.
It could be argued that all the bodies I have mentioned have a vested interest and want the status quo to prevail. If that were so, it would be a very telling argument, but it is not so. The consumer protection organisation takes a very similar view. I am pleased about this, because if there was a conflict of interest between manufacturers or professional bodies and consumers, I believe that the consumers' interests would have to be paramount. There is no conflict in this case, because the Consumer Council shares the views. I had intended to quote a passage from its magazine which makes it clear that it subscribes to the

view of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and believes that it is wrong to make these provisions as to label size. I shall not detain the House by quoting that in full. The magazine is available in the Library if any hon. Member wants to read the passage. The Consumer Council has also conducted a survey, which supports the theory that it is not necessary to relate the size of letters one to another to get clarity and legibility and to keep the general public informed.
This is a long list of professional bodies and organisations, plus the Consumer Council, all taking the view that it is wrong to relate the size of lettering to the largest letter on a pack.
It is important that the Minister should reconsider these Regulations. I said at the beginning of my speech that I do not believe that it is realistic at this stage, part of what is provided for in the Regulations having come into operation already, to expect the Minister to withdraw the Regulations. That might be a good point for the Opposition to make, but it is not a responsible point of view to take at this moment. It would be helpful, however, if the Minister would as an interim measure decide to drop out Regulation No. 17(2, b), if this is possible. [Interruption.] I realise that he could not do that and that he would have to withdraw the Regulations as a whole.
However, I hope that the House will be told that the Minister will continue to hold consultations with interested bodies, particularly with the Society of Industrial Designers and Artists, and will, in the light of further consultation, further consider the Regulations with a view to reviewing them in the foreseeable future. Then, in 18 months' time, after thorough consultation and after the Minister has reviewed the Regulations in the light of representations, he could bring forward a much better set of Regulations which would meet the views of the interested bodies and of the Consumer Council.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: We have heard two quite powerful speeches by hon. Members opposite. Unfortunately, I do not think they will influence the Minister and persuade him to withdraw the Regulations. It is not good enough that the Regulations should be considered a year from now. We have to deal with them tonight. Either the Minister must


meet the views which have been expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) or we should take strong action and demonstrate in the House that the Regulations should not be approved and secure that they are duly considered. It may not happen, but it should, because I accept as much as anyone else that there is in these Regulations a great deal of sense. There are some very good points about them.
I spent 25 years in the pharmaceutical trade. I do not have to declare an interest because I am no longer in it, but I was in it, and I think I did every job from that of salesman upwards. We manufactured over 850 and sold over 2,000 labelled articles. It was a tremendous job. I hope that that practical experience may he allowed to underline one or two comments which I want to make and which will be fairly strong.
We get too much sometimes of the grandmotherly character about these sorts of Regulations. Of course, that is one of the faults of having this extra and growing number of civil servants. I suppose they have to do something, and they cough up these fussy Regulations, which are not required by the housewives who are much more discerning in these matters than we sometimes in the House give them credit for being. They are not really taken for a ride. They know what a Mars Bar is and that a Kit-Kat has biscuit in it. There is some sense in these Regulations but they are too fussy, and they will cause a great deal of trouble and difficulty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks mentioned the two packs. That is something I have had something to do with in my time. There sometimes has to be more than one. The Indian market, no matter what one does, will not have too big a container. The Egyptian market, on the other hand, likes the biggest possible bottle. Really, it does not matter very much what one puts in; the important thing is the size of the container.
With all the detail which has to go on the label one needs quite a large one or else there is scarcely room for the name.
People still hardly know what is inside. They only know there is no cascara in it. I suppose there could be some element of doubt about it.
I am intrigued by paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 4, on page 32:
Any declaration required or permitted by regulation 11(4) or (5) shall appear in dark coloured characters upon a light coloured ground or light coloured characters upon a dark coloured ground"—
[Laughter.] Just listen to it —
and where by reason of the transparency of the container the contents thereof are visible. those contents"—
wait for it—
shall be taken to be the ground for the purposes of this paragraph.
It is so wonderful, is it not? How on earth is it done, except by some super-graduated chap from a university bouncing into Whitehall to help to increase the number of civil servants by 43,000? It goes on:
The characters shall be of uniform colour and size, save that the initial letter in any word may be taller than any other letter in that word"—
most gracious, is it not?—
and the letters in any preposition, conjunction or participle"—
nobody I ever employed knew what a participle was—
may be shorter than the letters in any other word.
Frankly, I did not have time to read all of this, and I just spotted that paragraph in particular. But one cannot take this sort of thing seriously. It is too fussy.
Many of the Regulations, as the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green said, are hopelessly complex. Time after time in this House we have talked of the strain put upon the capacity of the courts to interpret some of the stuff we put in Regulations like these. Not only that, there is the question of the manufacturing firms themselves.
I recall my experience when I worked between the wars in Germany for a time. It was extremely interesting. The Regulations under the Hitler ré gime were absolutely incredible, and this is the sort of thing which developed. I am not speaking of Nazi laws, but this sort of bureaucratic balder-dash we are dealing with today.


The result was that firms up and down the country had permanently to employ in their offices legal advisers to interpret the sort of regulations which their parliament passed. I am sorry, but this is the sort of stage that we are reaching now, and I deprecate it.
I cannot imagine that there has been any realistic consultation in this matter. I stress the word "realistic", because, frankly, it does not mean anything to send round a piece of paper unless there is realistic, effective consultation to ensure that the voices of those doing the job are listened to and taken into account. I cannot believe that that has occurred in this case. Certainly it has not in matter of design. That is painfully obvious.
Labels should have many purposes. It is not enough that they should measure up the Whitehall idea of what should be on a label, which really comes down to what a young post-graduate thinks. Other factors are important. There is the design entity, which is a great technique. That cannot be decided by measuring with a tape the size of letters, or by dealing with participles and so on. It has to have factual information on it, and that is not always as the Government think. It also has to have character, a nature, and salesmanship. Those are all important.
I deprecate the Government's lack of appreciation of the capacity of the public to be discerning in these matters, and their failure to take into consideration the views of those who have long experience in these matters and who know a bit about the subject. Of course, there are some people in all trades who try to pull a few "smart alec" tricks, but they can be dealt with without all the difficulties involved in these Regulations, which will increase costs enormously.
There is one point which is not clear to me, and perhaps the Minister can deal with it. Advertisers are interested in it, and so am I in connection with an interest which I have disclosed to the House before, and that is a modest part-time connection with the drink trade. We are flummoxed as to what is meant by "selling by retail trade". To what extent does it take in catering? To what extent must a caterer label a sausage roll, saying that it contains bread and, before it

dried out, originally contained some gravy?
Then there are questions of "major" and "minor" ingredients. The Regulations say that if the product contains a minor ingredient, the lettering must not be unduly prominent in relation to the major ingredient. In other words, the major ingredient must be in taller letters. It goes on to say that the size of letters for the minor ingredient is governed by the one-quarter rule size.
Let us examine that. It is fortunate that water is not counted as an ingredient, which helps the drink trade. But in pharmacy, peppermint is an ingredient which is frequently used. It is put in many medicines to conceal an otherwise unpleasant taste. On the other hand, the quantity of an ingredient like chloroform or opium would he expressed in decimal places. It is very much a minor ingredient. But by featuring the peppermint in large lettering and the chloroform in small, who is protected?
When we sold things which we call dangerous drugs, apart from the Regulations peculiar to dangerous drugs and foreign preparations, we drew attention to the minor ingredients by making the lettering bigger. As I read it, that would probably be an offence under these Regulations.
This is nonsense. There is no shadow of doubt that these Regulations ought to be taken back and given proper consideration. This is yet another case of this Government giving ill-digested consideration to something thought up by some back-room academic boy who does not know anything about industry or commerce or salesmanship or labels and comes here with this stuff, part good and part bad, like the curate's egg, but in this case the greater part bad, there having been no consultation beforehand. I do not know of a single organisation—I know of many and I am closely connected with the C.B.I.—that approves of this. The Government must not feel fit to go against everybody's opinions, except our political ones, by some high pressure job of a few people. They have not even got the Consumer Council on their side. If they have not got that, what have they got except their back-room boys?
Let this be taken back, I beg. If not, let us register firmly our view that it


ought to be taken back, despite the hon. Lady's respect for her own side. I did not always have the same respect as she has. I carried my convictions many times against my own party when I felt strongly about anything. We should demonstrate that the Government must not continue to abuse their position and abuse the nation by bringing forward ill-digested, ill-thought out legislation which does nobody any good, least of all the Government.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: I do some work as a consultant in the marketing and advertising business, and packaging, with which these Regulations are closely concerned, can from time to time be an important factor. To that extent I have an interest. But because one has an interest in this field, it does mean that one has worked with manufacturers and designers on the production of packs. Though I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) that in principle the Regulations are a step forward, my experience makes me wonder whether it is necessary that some aspects of the Regulations should go into so much detail as they do.
When one reads paragraph 1 of Schedule IV, which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred to, things like the fact that the appropriate designation
… shall not be in any way hidden or obscured or reduced in conspicuousness by any other matter, whether pictorial or not, appearing on such label",
and the question of the height of the lettering, make one wonder whether sufficient account has been taken of the essential nature of design and typography.
I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) was right in what he suggested about that, but I did not agree with him on some of the examples that he chose. There was one that he called balderdash relating to the contents of the bag. This is a sensible provision concerning polythene bags. It makes a great deal of difference to the sort of lettering that one puts on a bag whether one is putting green peas in it or fish of any sort.
To give another example, legibility is not just a question of the height of the

lettering. The Regulations emphasise the height of the lettering. It is possible to have a heavily condensed type face in a fairly large point size, but such a type face can be much less legible than a more expanded type face in a smaller point size. This is the sort of design point that should be taken into account.
Visual impact has not got a great deal to do with size. We have all seen advertisements where the advertiser has bought much more space than in fact he needed, simply so that his message, set in a comparatively small size, could be surrounded by a large amount of white space to give it more impact than if the lettering had been very big.
The marketing business is generally efficient, and it is one in which people have to work fast, and at times very much under pressure. Decisions have to be taken quickly. I think that some aspects of these Regulations will make the approval of new pack designs a very slow business, because professionals will no longer trust their judgment to approve even rough designs. It could become a a field day for lawyers, with a lot of time wasted. One thing that the Ministry can do to help is to set up an advisory centre to give manufacturers a quick turn round on rough designs so that they know that the design is all right. Unless something like this is done, a great deal of time will be wasted.
As consumers, we are very sophisticated. and it is doubtful whether the regular purchasers of many reputable products need to be protected to quite this extent. When they are confronted with an unfamiliar product, I think that they are sufficiently educated to look for the information they want on the pack.
I understand that in the United States, where consumers are probably much better protected on the whole than they are in this country, and where they have much more experience of pre-packed foods and goods, the type sizing is mandatory only for weight, and the common or usual designation has only to be in a size reasonably related to the prominent printed matter on the label, which seems a more reasonable state of affairs.
The Regulations do not cover the size in which the weight must be on the packs. I understand that the Board of Trade


will shortly be introducing further Regulations or Orders to specify this. I hope that if this is done the Board of Trade will bear in mind what is rather an abuse at the moment, namely, the multiplicity in some markets of similar pack sizes at different prices. This can be confusing for the housewife. This sort of situation arises when the main person in the market, the person with the biggest share, has a ½lb. pack, and others have 7 oz. packs at a lower price. There is a multiplicity of pack sizes at different prices, and it becomes difficult for the housewife to know which is the cheaper buy unless the weight of the contents is clear to her. I hope that the Board of Trade will consider this, because it gives rise to genuine confusion.
I think that in bringing in Regulations of this kind the Government ought to as far as possible to concentrate on what the public feel are real abuses, but it still seems doubtful whether all this legislation—these Regulaitons, and the Consumer Protection Bill, which has now become the Trade Descriptions Bill—will in any way affect the grossly misleading labelling of wines, which is increasingly becoming an irritant as more and more people buy and drink wine. It is possible that this may not be covered by the Trade Descriptions Bill. I urge the Government to concentrate on bringing in Regulations to deal with what people feel are the real abuses, and to resist the temptation to legislate in greater detail than is necessary.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: One of the unusual aspects of this debate is the high degree of accord between both sides of the House. I hope that this will not be lost on the Minister, because when speaker after speaker from both sides of the House makes the same point it seems to show that there is something wrong with these Regulations which requires the Minister to take them back.
One other thing which the debate has done is to highlight the problem which al says faces the House when we are debating Statutory Instruments and Regulations of this nature. Quite often one agrees with most of the Regulations, and disagrees with only a minor part of them, though in this case it is a very important part. The House has either to pray against the Regulations as a whole, or

accept them as a whole. It is time that we amended our procedures so that the Minister is able to withdraw those parts of the Regulations which offend the House as a whole.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend see that according to the Regulations the Minister may exempt
Any kind of meat when forming an ingredient of a sausage, meat pie, meat pudding, sausage roll, vol-au-vent, faggot, hamburger. rissole, croquette or meat ball…"?
Haggis is not exempted. I have no doubt that the Minister would want the opportunity to do what my hon. Friend has suggested he should have power to do in that case.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a very grave oversight and I am sure that it is a matter which the Minister will wish to put right, if he does not want to put anything else right.
I want to draw attention only to one matter which has not yet been discussed. The Minister knows that I take a considerable interest in the addition of artificial substances to foodstuffs. As a nation we are gradually poisoning ourselves by adding to our foodstuffs many chemicals the nature of which we are not entirely certain and the long-term effects of which we do not know.
I want to draw attention to Regulations 1 and 2, which refer to cyclamates. The Minister knows that there are some associations—the British Diabetic Association, for example—which have expressed concern lest diabetics and other people in a similar situation, in the course of their daily intake of food and drink, absorb more than 3 grammes of cyclamates in any one period of 24 hours. It seems to me that it is possible for an adult—it is certainly possible for a child —to absorb more than the amount recommended by the sub-committee which considered the matter. I believe that the sub-committee said that the accepted amount which an adult could take was 50 mg. per kg. of body weight which, interpreted, means about 317 mg. per stone or 14 lb. of body weight.
As the labelling Regulations stand it is impossible for anybody to know whether he or she is taking foodstuffs or drink which contains cyclamates. Generally speaking, manufacturers cover saccharin and cyclamates by the generic


term "artificial sweeteners", and anyone warned by his or her doctor not to exceed a certain intake of cyclamates each day cannot measure it. I should have thought it would be possible to amend the Regulations so as to require manufacturers using cyclamates as artificial sweeteners to say what they are using and how much of it, so that it would be possible for consumers to know what they are taking. I suggest that instead of using a term such as 50 mgs. per kg. of body weight there should be an interpretation in terms which people who have to eat or drink these things can understand.
We are entitled to know what we are eating and drinking. We are entitled to know whether there are any substances in what we are eating and drinking which are likely to do harm, especially if they are taken in excess of a certain limit laid down for us. If our desire is to protect the consumer, this is one way in which the Minister can do so.
I beg the hon. Gentleman, in view of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the general aspects of these Regulations, to take them back in their entirety and reproduce them in a way which is acceptable to us all.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for having moved the Prayer. It is clear from the speeches that have been made—and I am sorry that there has not been time for more—that there is a genuine feeling on both sides of the House that these Regulations, in one aspect at least, do not meet the needs or wishes of hon. Members and, I believe, of people outside the House. The speeches made represent a genuine cross-section view of concern about one aspect of the Regulations.
I accept—as do my hon. Friends—that the bulk of the Regulations are valuable and useful. We do not oppose the generality of the Regulations, as such. But there are one or two aspects—and one in particular which has been referred to by everybody—which we find offensive. We feel that it has not been properly considered and I shall seek to show that there are several reasons why it should be taken back. The hon. Lady and the

hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoiled otherwise excellent speeches by saying that they would not go into the Lobby against the Regulations. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford went so far as to say that it would not be responsible to call for their withdrawal. I cannot agree: I think that these Regulations should be withdrawn.
His solution to the one aspect which he thought should be changed was that these Regulations should go forward and amending Regulations be brought in later. But that would put an unreasonable burden on industry. The main Regulations do not come into force until January, 1971, but, once these are on the Statute Book, industry must take account of them. This is the real difficulty—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Surely there are so many good points about these Regulations that it would be wrong, on one narrow, although important, issue, to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Mr. Godber: I agree that there are many good points, but, because the Regulations do not come into effect until January, 1971, they could be amended and then there would be time to reintroduce them in a generally acceptable form. This would be the proper solution.
Any Government, after all, know that Regulations they bring forward cannot be amended, and it is therefore their duty to have the fullest possible consultation before hand so as to get a fair consensus. There has not been adequate consultation on particular aspects of Schedule 4(2, b), which has been condemned by many. Those who have spoken against this point on the other side of the House have not made their case for not voting and I hope that we can persuade them to do so, as I believe they should.
Schedule 4 (2, b) defines the size of the letters, saying that the letters
shall he not less than one quarter of the height of the tallest letter, other than an initial leter, in any word of more than one letter appearing on any label on the container.
That is very involved, but I think that the meaning is understood.
The people affected feel that this puts an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction on those providing and designing labels. We must consider the effect of


this Regulation on manufacturers and the attitude of consumers, as hon. Members opposite have done.—[An HON. MEMBER: "The whole thing."] One of my hon. Friends says, "The whole thing", but I want to concentrate on the single point. Although there may be arguments against some other aspects, in the time available I can only develop sufficiently the case on what I know will cause the gravest concern to industry and is a matter of concern to the Consumer Council.
The main dispute is the size of the lettering. What is the purpose of this definition and who is it designed to help? Those are fundamental questions, which should be answered clearly. There are other points, particularly in relation to paragraph 4 of the same Schedule, in sub-paragraph 2(b, i and ii), in regard to questions of proximity. I do not intend to deal with that, because of the shortness of time. I wish to concentrate on the question which has been of particular concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The impact on manufacturers of this paragraph is considerable indeed.
The labelling and attractive presentation of products is an important factor in so much of the food trade today. This was clearly shown by the remarks of the hon. Member for Wood Green, although I was surprised that she said that the effect of this change would not be as great as had been estimated. She is entitled to her view, but I would have thought—considering the extent and variety of these proposals—that this estimate is reasonable.
I will give only one small example of the effect this change is likely to have. I hold a package of a well-known product—[An HON. MEMBER: "Open it."]
I will say no more about the product than that. I am told that the whole design of the pack will have to be changed if this Regulation is passed. This package is easily recognised by everybody as a standard commercial product, yet the warding and size of the description is not large enough to conform with the provisions of this Schedule. Nevertheless, it is an excellently presented product which no one would have the least difficulty in recognising.
In considering the total effect of this on producers and manufacturers, I was startled when I asked one firm what effect

these proposals would have on its activities. The firm produced for me four volumes containing different labels and I was told that, of the 2,500 to 3,000 different labels in those four books—I have the books with me, although I have not counted the labels—about three-quarters will have to be changed as a result of this provision. That indicates the size of the problem. Thus, I do not discount the estimate of between £2 million and £4 million as the total cost of the change We must remember that that is merely the cost of getting the work done. There is then the question of designing and preparing the work. This will make a substantial difference in many ways.
Why must this change be implemented at all? At a time when, for example, the Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly called on the food trade to keep prices down, why put an additional on-cost on to its products, which must in some way be passed on to the consumer? It is definitely wrong that this should be done in a way which will have such a great impact—that is, unless that impact can be shown to be necessary and desired by consumers. It has been made clear that consumers, as represented by the Consumer Council, do not support this aspect of the Regulations. Indeed, in the Press hand-out issued on 5th November, Miss Ackroyd, Director of the Consumer Council, said:
 I want to make it clear that the Consumer Council warmly supports the Regulations for improved food labelling taken as a whole. But we think that some of the more complicated requirements about the size of lettering used on the label may simply create problems for the designers of food packs without shedding any light for consumers.
The Consumer Council is not really resting on its own view. It has recently conducted surveys and has pointed out that it emerged from them that consumers do not read a great deal of significance into the size of letters used in the words describing food products. The Council said:
… we think that the complicated control over the height of letters in relation to each other will simply wash over the consumer without bringing any special benefits to her.
That is the view of the Consumer Council and the result of the survey it held among consumers. It is up to the Minister to tell the House why his information is so much at variance with that of those who claim to represent consumers.
The manufacturers have shown the difficulty and have resisted, and the consumers have certainly not asked for these Regulations. Why are we as a House asked to endorse them? So far as I can ascertain, no hon. Member on either side of the House wants the Regulations endorsed.
Another aspect is that of consultation. I want to put one or two pertinent points to the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall quote from a letter from the President of the Food Manufacturers' Federation dated 23rd November 1967. He had indicated in a previous letter that he agreed that the Federation had better go along with the Regulations, but he then quote that letter of 14th November in which he said:
I have felt it incumbent upon me to stress the view which I know to be diametrically opposed to the advice you have received from other quarters.
In his letter of 23rd November he said:
I was, of course, referring to the basis of the case made by you…"—
the Minister himself—
and consistently made by your officials throughout, that the consumer wanted and was indeed pressing for the sizing of type regulations. We now find that the Consumer Council, following its recent survey, is taking exactly the same view that we put to you.
He calls for the Regulations to be withdrawn. The significant thing is that, two days afterwards, Miss Ackroyd. head of the Consumer Council, went to the Ministry—no doubt she was asked to do so—and then wrote to the Ministry again explaining the point of view put in the House tonight. She says this was first the view of the Consumer Council and remains its view, and adds:
We did not like the proposals of the draft sent to us on 21st June, 1967, but your covering letter actively discouraged comment at that stage.
Mark that point. She goes on to say that the survey of attitudes towards food labelling shows that housewives wanted the type of thing we have been talking about, which is not contained in the Regulations. Subsequently she saw a high official in the Ministry and he wrote to her expressing a view which he thought was the consensus of the discussion they had had. He said:
Any possible reconsideration of this point at this stage would inevitably lead to delay

in the making of the food labelling regulations and, in the light of what I told you, you agreed that this would be undesirable.
In the earlier letter Miss Ackroyd made the point that they had been actively discouraged from putting forward suggestions, but at the later stage they were told that the Regulations must go forward,
in the light of what I told you.
The Minister must tell us what the official told Miss Ackroyd and what is the reason for pressure for speed. If there is that pressure it must be on the basis of what Miss Ackroyd was told and I expect the House will be told tonight. If we are not told the reasons for the speed—remember, the Regulations do not come into force until 4th January, 1971—and acknowledge that this point is in dispute and accepted neither by the manufacturers nor recommended by consumers. there is an overwhelming case for the withdrawal of these Regulations so that they can be resubmitted in more reasonable form at a future time.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): There is a fair amount to reply to, and I shall do my best to reply to it. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) quoted Miss Ackroyd's most recent statement, because this dispels the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) and by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). Although Miss Ackroyd and the Consumer Council have some objection to the print —they have made that quite clear, they have put it on record and there is no doubt about it—she says this:
I want to make it clear that the Consumer Council warmly supports the regulations for improved food labelling taken as a whole".
That is her considered opinion.
I will say where certain of the wording is taken from. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Member for Grantham did not even notice where the wording had been taken from. It may be that we have taken some wrong examples. Paragraph 7(1) in Schedule 4 is almost identical with the wording in Article 4(2) of the Labelling of Food Order 1953, which was introduced by the Conservatives. It may be that we were wrong to follow that precedent. Schedule 4 of the


Soft Drinks Order, 1964, which was also introduced by the Conservatives, contains almost exactly the same wording. It may well be that we were a little wrong about it, but we thought that it was on the whole fairly explicit.
The Regulations are the culmination, not of a short study, but of a study which was initiated six years ago. These consultations have been going on for six years. They represent a substantial and necessary revision of the Labelling of Food Order, 1953 and of the subsequent amending Regulations. The 1953 Order was in many ways an excellent piece of legislation, but over the years it has shown itself to be defective in a number of respects.
In the new Regulations we have taken three important steps. First, we have laid down that all foods without exception must bear a common or usual name or appropriate designation. Secondly, we have greatly reduced the number of foods which are exempt from the requirement to give a full list of ingredients on the label. Thirdly, we have strengthened the provisions that the statutory information mist be clear and legible by introducing specific provisions about the size of the type in which such information should appear. I will deal with this a little more fully later on.
There are a large number of other detailed provisions, most of which implement recommendations in the Food Standard Committee's Report on Food Labelling published as long ago as 1964. We have looked critically at all the provisions in the light of the developments in the sale of food over the last 15 years. These have been considerable. In particular, the great increase in self-service stores has made the consumer more dependent, as I think everyone will agree, on the label than ever before. It is often his only source of information about the food, and so it is even more important that he gets the information in a form that he can readily understand—and readily find as well. Thus the need for protection has increased.
The general and detailed provisions of the Regulations are directed to providing this protection and, taken in their entirety, they represent a significant step forward.
I think that it is necessary to look at the Regulations as a whole. It would be too much to hope that everyone who

received one of the 7,000 copies of the proposals we sent out would be equally satisfied by all our decisions, but in general it seems to me that the conclusions we have come to in the light of their views are right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke about consulting specific bodies. It may well be that the Society he mentioned should have been specifically consulted, but I give him an assurance about that for the future. What I want to say to him is that every time we issued a statement we invited comments from any organisation or individual wishing to do so, and the very fact that 7,000 copies were sent out proves how widely we extended our invitations to make sure people were not missed out.
Reference has been made to the coming into force of the Regulations. In deciding that we have to strike a balance between what is desirable and what is practicable. It is clearly impossible to make labelling Regulations of this kind without involving changes in existing labels. I do not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman said about that, although I think the amount of label changing these Regulations will involve has been severely exaggerated—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly in certain quarters. But there will have to be, as I said, a good deal of changing. Apart from labels with a declaration of ingredients in type that is not large enough, many foods will have to bear a name or a declaration of ingredients or both for the first time.
The work on this should clearly be spread over a period, both to reduce the cost and to allow it to be carried out in a smooth and orderly fashion. It is because of this that this long period has been provided. Exactly what is the right period may be largely a matter of opinion, but we considered that three years was a pretty reasonable time for the necessary changes to be made without unduly delaying this work on behalf of consumers.
I turn very quickly to the question of type, because it has been raised by every hon. Member who has spoken, by my hon. Friends as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite. I must say to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that it adds nothing to his argument just to abuse civil servants. He accused them of mumbo-jumbo. The


hon. Member for Shipley did not add to his arguments either merely by abusing some civil servants. On the whole these men are good servants of this country.
I shall pass on to two points on which the Regulations have been criticised, although from very opposed points of view. I will deal first with the size of type provisions contained in Schedule 4. I should explain that the generalised provisions in the present Regulations, which require that the statutory information should be clearly legible and appear conspicuously and in a prominent position on the label, have not been easy to enforce and have not always been able to ensure the desired result.
The Food Standards Committee concluded that something more was required to achieve what the Committee described as
the inherent right of the prospective consumer, with reasonable scrutiny of a pre-packed food, readily to see and read the information which the law requires to be put on the label.
In addition, precise provisions on size of type make the Regulations much less vague and very much easier to comply with as well as to enforce.
The question is, how to achieve this in a practical way that is not too complicated or too restrictive of label design —and I take the point made by my hon. Friend. It is no secret that we have spent a great deal of time on this problem, ably assisted by the food manufacturers, advertising interests, consumer organisations and enforcing authorities. We did not think it would be right to impose the very detailed plan proposed by the Food Standards Committee; we did not think it right to go to that length, and we have substantially modified our own original plan after long consultations with the interests concerned and the measuring and study of many labels. We have ended up with what seems to us to be the most reasonable answer to the problem.
There has been much misunderstanding about these provisions. What we say is that if a label complied with Schedule 4 it is most unlikely indeed that it will fail to be clear and legible. This in itself is a worthwhile objective.
I will explain as briefly as I can what the provisions are and what they are de-

signed to achieve. The basic requirement is a minimum size of lettering related to the largest dimension of the container. For the declaration of ingredients, this is the sole requirement.
As for the common or usual name or the appropriate designation, that is, the name which tells the customer what the food really is as against the brand or fancy name, there is a similar provision.
So far, the provisions are agreed, with a greater or lesser degree of enthusiasm, by all the interests concerned. It is the two further provisions which have been sharply criticised. These, as I have said, apply only to the common or usual name or the appropriate designation.
They lay down two requirements which have been clearly outlined tonight. First, the height of the smallest letter of the main words in the name should be not less than a quarter of the height of the largest letter on the label. Second, the largest letter in the name should not be more than twice the size of the smallest letter.
It is easy to say that provisions of this kind which lay down precise requirements will inhibit design. But a designer is never a totally free agent, and design is always produced in the context of a series of limitations, imposed by the product, the container, and the demands of the client, as well as the requirements of the law. Labels can be misleading if the brand name or other lettering is grossly bigger than the true name, even though the true name is legible.
A very large number of products are being asked to carry a name for the first time, and without this requirement there would be a strong temptation to put the name in the smallest type permitted, even though the other words on the label would totally overshadow it. A similar method has already been included in six Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, all made when the party opposite was in power, and it seems to have worked satisfactorily in those.
The purpose of the second requirement, concerning the relationship between the letters of the name, is to prevent major but cheap or unpopular ingredients being put in very small type.
I recognise that considerable feeling has been expressed in the debate, and


that, in particular, there is genuine concern about the likely effects on design. I accept, too, that the degree to which these provisions are required for the protection of the consumer must, in the last resort, be a matter of opinion.
I will give the House this undertaking. I agree to consider the matter further to see if there are grounds for making changes in the provisions relating to the size of type. I am willing to look at that to see if it can be done.

Mr. John Hall: Then, why not with draw them?

Mr. Hoy: I do not require to withdraw the Regulations, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) expressed concern about the use of cyclamates, and I take her point. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), on the other hand, was resuming the old battle of sugar versus cyclamates, which was fought On a previous occasion.
We felt that it was better that we should use a generic word in this case, rather than spell out on every occasion what everything meant. My hon. Friend was complaining, as were right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we were putting far too much on the label. I do not think—

Mr. R. W. Elliott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I will put the Question automatically at half-past eleven.

Mr. Hoy: All I want to say is that by what we have done tonight in these Regulations, irrespective of the point dealing with print, we have got for the consumers of this country a better deal than they had before.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No point of order can arise. I am required by the Standing Orders of the House to put the Question at 11.30.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Mrs. Joyce Butler rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am required by the Standing Orders of the House to put the Question at 11.30.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp; c. (procedure)):—

The House divided:Ayes 130, Noes 170.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Heseltine, Michael


 Astor, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Baker, W. H. K.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hordern, Peter


Bessell, Peter
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Boardman, Tom
Fortescue, Tim
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brewis, John
Foster, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, tan (Norfolk, C.)
Jopling, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glover, Sir Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kirk, Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kitson, Timothy


Campbell, Gordon
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant-Ferris, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, Henry
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Neil


Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maude, Angus


Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.




Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tilney, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Murton, Oscar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Webster, David


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Silvester, Frederick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Woodnutt, Mark


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wright, Esmond


Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. Jasper More and


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Archer, Peter
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Baxter, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Bence, Cyril
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Horner, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coe, Dennis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, W.O. J. (Walth'stow, E)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Paul


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swindler, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenxie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Weitzman, David


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ennals, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Yates, Victor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell, Robert
Mr. Ernest Perry.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

11 40 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Under Standing Order No. 100, if a Motion of a kind which I understand we have had before us tonight, on a Statutory Instrument,
is under consideration at half-past eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put any question which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair, provided that, if he shall be of opinion that—

(a)owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, or
(b) because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion,
the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting.
When you rose to close the debate at half-past eleven, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rose to a point of order with the intention of calling your attention to Standing Order No. 100 and asking whether, having regard to the importance of the subject and the number of speakers who had risen previously, you would consider adjourning the debate.
You ruled me out of order in putting that point of order at that stage. If an hon. Member is not permitted to call your attention to the Standing Order and ask you to exercise your discretion at that stage it leaves the House in some difficulty in calling the attention of Mr. Deputy Speaker or Mr. Speaker to the fact that he can exercise a discretion to extend the debate, and asked him to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is under a misapprehension. I am required, at half-past eleven, under the Standing Order which the hon. Member quoted, to put the Question unless I am of the opinion that for either of the reasons mentioned in the Standing Order the time for debate has not been adequate. I had considered that point and was of the opinion that the time for debate had been adequate.
It would have been open to the hon. Member, prior to half-past eleven, to rise on a point of order and ask me to consider the application of Standing Order No. 100, but it is not open to any hon. Member to raise that point of order once the hour of half-past eleven has

arrived, because I am then required by the Standing Order of the House thereupon to put the Question.

SEYCHELLES (MR. LOIZEAU AND MR. GOBINE)

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: This debate concerns the fate of two simple men, Phillip Loizeau and Paul Gobine, who, 13 unlucky years ago, found themselves wrongly charged with murder. They were nevertheless adjudicated guilty, were sentenced to death, and suffered months of terrorised agony in the condemned cells of one of the distant islands of the Seychelles, where they lived and where the slaying, the subject matter of the charge, took place.
In that beautiful Indian Ocean tropical island, Mahé, literally a thousand miles from anywhere, at the time of this trial and of subsequent trials which I shall recount, the administration of justice had occasioned such public alarm that a large number of distinguished citizens had, unfortunately with no effect, petitioned the Colonial Secretary to remove the then Chief Justice from the island. This petition, among other matters, alleged that the behaviour of the Chief Justice was a byword and a scandal.
The rejection of that petition led to a Parliamentray debate in this House which was led by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the late Nye Bevan, who demanded in vain a commission of inquiry into the administration of justice. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knew nothing, of course, of these trials, but if your demand and that of Nye Bevan had been met the agony of these two men would doubtless have been at least much more limited. But these two hapless men, in these distant islands which are so difficult to supervise by an alert Whitehall, never mind the supine Whitehall of those days, were trapped like flies in a tenuous and tangled web. Fortunately, the eager court which had sentenced them to death had bungled in some important technical detail, and when the men appealed to the East African Court in Nairobi it quashed the convictions and set aside the death sentence.
The Appeal Court did not examine the facts but, on the basis of these technical errors, it declared the trial to be a mistrial


and made comments which a less prejudiced police and Bar in the Seychelles would have taken as a broad hint to drop the matter. But, thwarted of their quarry, the police and the local Attorney-General decided to harass these men yet again.
So these wretched men were recharged, now with manslaughter and an affray and, in a careless court, with evidence shockingly suppressed by the police, Loizeau and Gobine were found guilty and received sentences of five years and 12 months respectively. Both these men served those onerous sentences, and if it had not been for two factors I do not doubt that no more would have been heard of the whole squalid matter.
The first and most important was the zeal of a local resident, Mr. Tyndale-Biscoe, who was convinced that the men were innocent and evidently thought that the police and a prosecuting barrister named Thomas —another Thomas —among others, for reasons not hard to guess, had conspired to divert the course of justice and secure the escape of the real culprit at the expense of convicting two innocent men, a conviction which was secured, if necessary, by means of perjured and fabricated evidence obtained by threats and by manipulation of the trials.
Tyndale-Biscoe is doubtless a spiky and awkward man, as crusaders often are. People with a passion for justice are difficult for authorities to contain. But, whatever his faults, he did not lack persistence in his quest to remedy what he has proved to be a great wrong.
The second factor was my visit to the island on a Parliamentary delegation in 1963. Some may doubt the value of hurried visits by such delegations to our remote and diminishing colonial possessions, but this debate proves otherwise. I did not escape the attentions of Mr. Tyndale-Biscoe. I have defended too many murderers to believe easily that, in our courts, men are wrongly convicted, but as I met the tight and ingrown Bar of the Seychelles the misgivings sown by my informants did not diminish: they increased.
As the Minister knows, from my return in 1963 to now, I have harried his Department on these matters. It is to the credit of the Commonwealth Office that, as the evidence and affidavits mounted

up, they masked nothing and obviously increasingly shared my misgivings. So, boldly and rightly, in response to my constant demand for an inquiry, they ultimately set up a special court in London manned by distinguished judges who will, in future, be able to have much needed jurisdiction over the courts of the Seychelles, and of other islands in the Commonwealth.
The first case referred to the new court was that of Loizeau and Gobine and, having heard the case with the detachment and objectivity which we treasure in London, the court, more than a decade after the sentences of hanging had been passed, quashed all the later convictions. These two men, who have trembled for many months on the brink of the gallows, who had unjustly been imprisoned and who had carried this stigma for so many years would, I should have thought, after their terrible ordeal, have received, unhesitatingly and speedily, some monetary compensation.
A pardon they cannot have, of course, because their convictions are quashed; but an ex-gratia payment should, out of shame, if not reparation, have been unstintingly given by the Governor and his Executive Council. It is lamentable to think that after 18 months of vacillation it has now been decided that no compensation is to be given. It is even more disgraceful to note that, although the Governor has the power to authorise the disclosure of the proceedings of the Executive Council, no reason whatever has been given why nothing is to be done for these two men.
When in London, the case came before the Court of Appeal. The judges did not need to consider the question whether witnesses had been suborned, for it was quickly conceded that a serious technical wrong had been done to these men by the non-disclosure of inconsistent prosecution witness statements to the defence at the original trial; and, on that basis alone, the judges could quash these convictions. Thus, the appeal did not have to inquire into the allegations before it of misconduct of members of the judiciary, of the police and of the Bar. I trust that no one is shielding or taking advantage of that lack of inquiry.
I realise that many feelings may be bruised in the Seychelles because of the result of this case, and doubtless it is


correctly thought that the reorganisation of the C.I.D, the appointment of a new Commissioner of Police and a new Chief Justice were not unconnected with these proceedings. But local prestigious reasons are no excuse for failure to pay compensation and so to leave an innuendo attached to these two men.
I appreciate the difficulties of protocol which may inhibit the new Governor from reversing the last decision of his predecessor, Lord Oxford and Asquith, but even at this stage I urge the Minister to ask Sir Hugh Norman-Walker to think over the matter afresh with his Executive Council. I have with me a document, a copy of another document—I have no reason to doubt its authenticity—which was submitted to the Executive Council by the Attorney-General in 1964. It says:
'Secretary of State's legal adviser, in consultation with the Home Office, after taking all the facts stated into consideration, gave their opinion that these convictions then ought to have been set aside by the grant to both Loizeau and Gobine of free pardons by the Governor.
It was not done then and it was not done until the case took place years later. In that document, submitted to the Executive Council by the then Attorney-General in 1964, it was made abundantly clear that if free pardons had been given, it would be necessary for compensation to follow. The fact that that pardon never came into existence and the fact that that did not take place at that time, but that the courts had quashed the sentences, should certainly not mean that these men should not have any compensation. I ask the Minister if the legal opinion of the Secretary of State's advisers has altered since 1964. Is the Secretary of State yielding to local pressures and local prestigious practice?
I hope that the people of the Seychelles will note from this debate and the events which led to it that here at Westminster there are always hon. Members and Ministers who are deeply concerned that justice exists in their little islands. They may be assured that if anyone in the Seychelles abuses his power, trust or position, then here in Westminster we shall continue to question and probe. Out of sight is not out of mind as far as our attitudes are concerned with the Seychelles. We know of their loyalty to Britain. That loyalty deserves to be rewarded by a House of Commons which

is ever mindful of their rights and welfare.

11.55 p.m.

Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has been persistent in pursuing this very difficult case of the two men whose names he has mentioned. I agree entirely with his closing words that the people of the Seychelles are intensely loyal to this country and are entitled to feel that we are loyal to them.
This difficult case has been pursued by my hon. Friend in connection with my noble Friend the Joint Minister of State who serves in another place. I speak in this House for the dependent territories when the Secretary of State does not speak for them, but they are cared for in the Department by my noble Friend. He has written as recently as 1st December to my hon. Friend explaining why he could not give reasons for his refusal of compensation. My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not satisfied with the Minister's letter. The decision not to pay compensation is not that of Her Majesty's Government; it is that of the Government of the Seychelles.
The Governor, taking the advice of his Executive Council, the mouthpiece of the local people, has decided—first Lord Oxford and Asquith was the Governor—against the payment of compensation. Then, when Sir Norman Walker, the present Governor, took up his duties, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of State, now Minister of Social Security, asked him to undertake a completely new investigation of his own into the evidence and to review the case and see whether he thought that the case needed reopening. The Governor has advised Her Majesty's Government that he shares the opinion of his predecessor.
I understand my hon. Friend wanting to know the reasons, but, as we have explained to him in correspondence, if we were to press the Governor to give his reasons that would be tantamount to a disclosure of the proceedings of the Executive Council. We know by our own Cabinet system that the confidence of the Cabinet—the Executive Council is the equivalent there—is something which is accepted. Members of the Executive Council are on oath not to reveal directly


or indirectly the business or proceedings of the Council or the nature or the contents of any document communicated to them or any matter coming to their knowledge in their capacity as members. That is why I cannot confirm tonight the authenticity of the document which my hon. Friend says that he has obtained. Any member of the Executive Council who gave such a document would, of course, have been breaking his oath and have been unworthy of his office. It is true that the oath permits the Governor to authorise disclosure, but it has been made clear to my hon. Friend that this would be countenanced only on the very rarest occasions and for the most exceptional reasons. My noble Friend, in a letter to my hon. Friend, said:
Certainly in cases of a judicial nature such as this the Governor does not consider that he could properly authorise disclosure.
My noble Friend agreed with the Governor.
It is very difficult, with a Colony which has a form of government, if the Imperial Parliament were to seek to tell the Executive Council and the Governor what they shall do. It would be—I know that my hon. Friend would be the first to say this—a remnant of imperialism if the Government at Westminster were to tell the Governor and the Executive Council of the Seychelles what decision they should reach. I know that long and anxious hours have been spent on this case. I want to underline to the House the fact that the payment of compensation to the two petitioners is entirely a matter to be settled in the Seychelles.
My hon. Friend, in introducing the case, paid tribute to the Appeals Court which met in London. I dispute none of his basic facts about the history of the case, which is a most remarkable case. We have no parallel that I know of in this country. I join my hon. Friend in wel-

coming the fact that this Appeals Court has been established. I also rejoice in the fact that a most distinguished Commonwealth judge has now taken up duty as the Chief Justice of the Seychelles. Sir Campbell Wylie is honoured and respected as a shrewd, intelligent and wise man. I believe that his appointment in the Seychelles can do nothing but good. Further, the police force has a new chief officer with considerable experience in the Commonwealth. The police force there has been reorganised. My hon. Friend will know some of the steps which have taken place.
Like my hon. Friend, I have been to the Seychelles. Indeed, it was my privilege to take part in the first Parliamentary delegation that ever left this House for the Seychelles. I was accompanied by Mr. Paul Williams, who is no longer in the House. I know something of the atmosphere of those lovely islands, to which my hon. Friend referred. The decision of Her Majesty's Government has been made clear to my hon. Friend. He has exercised his Parliamentary right to bring the matter before the House tonight, but I can only tell him that my noble Friend finds no reason to ask the Governor of the Seychelles to reconsider his decision further. That is a decision which my noble Friend reached after the most careful and detailed consideration of the issues to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are very limited in what we can do in the House, even with a Colony, once it has an executive council and a governor, as they have in the Seychelles. The fact that both Governors have reached the same conclusion will, I am quite sure, weigh with the House and with those who read the account of this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 7th February, 1968

[SIR BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Sir Barnett Janner (Chairman)


Armstrong, Mr. Ernest (Durham, North-West)
Lyon, Mr. Alexander W. (York)


Atkins, Mr. Humphrey (Merton and Morden)
McNamara, Mr. Kevin (Kingston upon Hull, North)



Maude, Mr. Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Bell, Mr. Ronald (Buckinghamshire, South)
Mitchell, Mr. R. C. (Southampton, Test)



Moonman, Mr. Eric (Billericay)


Boyle, Sir Edward (Birmingham, Handsworth)
Morrison, Mr. Charles (Devizes)


Carter-Jones, Mr. Lewis (Eccles)
Newens, Mr. Stan (Epping)


Coe, Mr. Denis (Middleton and Prestwich)
Price, Mr. Christopher (Birmingham, Perry Barr)


Dalyell, Mr. Tam (West Lothian)
van Straubenzee, Mr. W. R. (Wokingham)


Hill, Mr. J. E. B. (Norfolk, South)



Hornby, Mr. Richard(Tonhridge)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Minister of State, Department of Education and Science)


Jones, Mr. J. Idwal(Wrexham)




Mr. Ecclestone, Committee Clerk.

EDUCATION BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Education Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

This will, I trust, be substantially an uncontroversial Bill. Its purpose is to enable the governing bodies of the colleges of education and the colleges of further education to be established other than as sub-committees of their education committees, which is the present normal practice.
I would remind the Committee of the aftermath of the Robbins Committee. Hon. Members and some of the distinguished members of the Committee will know that it recommended that colleges of education should become part of a federation of educational institutions linked to the university departments of education and given a good deal of autonomy and freedom over their own government. The view of the Government of the day and the then Secretary of State was that this was unacceptable and that, because of the teacher supply position and the position of the administration of the colleges, the moment was unwise for such a radical change, but it was felt that the colleges of education should be enabled to do much more advanced work, which has led to the institution of the Bachelorship of Education, and should be given a degree of autonomy over their own government.
As a consequence of this, a study group was set up in 1965, on which sat representatives of the local authorities, the voluntary colleges and the teaching staff of the colleges of education. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. R. Weaver, discussed the ways in which the government of the colleges should be liberalised and, at the end of the day, concluded that the way to do this was to enable greater academic responsibility to be taken by the academic staff of the colleges and to enable the colleges to go ahead in an atmosphere of freedom unhindered by unnecessary restrictions.
There were, however, widely different views on the Committee, and necessarily so, because the bodies represented on it were representative of very different bodies of opinion in the community. Consequently, the Committee was bound to rest eventually upon the consensus of opinion which could be reached over the conduct of the affairs of the colleges. That conclusion was that a measure of freedom should be secured for the colleges and that the governing bodies above all should be constituted other than as sub-committees of the education committee.
As hon. Members will know, the fact that governing bodies were constituted as sub-committees of the education committee not only meant that they did not

have the ultimate responsibility for the colleges, since their decisions were referrable to the education committee and ultimately to the council, but also that they were bound by the standing orders which applied to the local authority. For these reasons, that structure was thought no longer suitable. Therefore, the main object of the Bill is to enable—without this legislation it would not be possible—both the colleges of further education and the colleges of education to be run so as to relieve them of the obligations which follow where the governing body is itself a sub-committee of the education committee.
I have referred so far to the colleges of further education and the colleges of education. But it would be proper to draw the attention of the Committee also to Clause 2, which enables special schools to have a governing body which also is not a sub-committee of the education committee. Special schools, where at present 67,000 boys and girls are being educated, never came under the provisions of the 1944 Act which enabled governing bodies or bodies of managers to be established for ordinary county primary and secondary schools, but I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, if there are to serve on the governing bodies of special schools the kind of people with expertise or a special interest in the education of physically and mentally handicapped children, it would be excellent if the restrictions of the present legislation binding them to be subcommittees of the education committee could also be liberalised.
There is a further provision of the Clause, which also applies to Clause 1, and which enables schools to be grouped for this purpose. Once again, the Committee will appreciate that it would be useful if someone with this kind of expertise could be employed economically on behalf of not just one special school but several in a group.
I turn now to the scope of the Bill as it relates to the colleges of education. There are at present about 65,000 education students in the colleges of education in the maintained sector and another 30,000 in the voluntary colleges of education, with which the Bill is not concerned. In addition, of the establishments of further education, of which


there are about 600, we should consider three particular groups.
The first is those colleges which are to constitute the 30 polytechnics this year. I would point out that, under the terms of the polytechnics, there is not only the necessary procedure of the approval of the articles of government by the Secretary of State, which apply to all articles of government constituted within this Bill, but also the designation procedure which, if anything, gives him slightly greater powers over the polytechnics. So they are, to that extent alone, a special case.
Second, there are about 200 colleges which engage in advanced work, that is to say, work leading to C.N.A.A., and degrees of that kind, and, finally, there is a group of 350 colleges which do, on the whole, no advanced work and concentrate largely on craft, technician courses and so on—

Sir Edward Boyle: I ought to know the answer to this question, but, in those last two sectors, now that the polytechnics have been designated, is the old distinct on between area and local colleges being maintained in normal speech or abandoned in view of the other changes?

Mrs. Williams: For the moment, it maintained in normal speech, but the administrative presuppositions behind the area and local colleges concept will obviously disappear as one gets the polytechnic college, the college doing part-time advance work, and the college doing virtually no advanced work. That was the distinction which I was trying to draw. This gives an idea of the Bill's scope.
Finally, I turn to the distinction between instruments and articles of government and the position of the clerk to the governing body. The instruments of government are fundamentally the college's constitution. The instrument of government lays down the precise makeup of the constitution and is concerned with exactly how many persons are on that constitutional committee from various bodies, and with the precise powers of the constitution and of those within it.
The articles of government, which are still subject under the Bill to the approval

of the Secretary of State, are concerned with the precise functions of the governing body, the academic board which will be established in colleges of education under this Bill, and they determine the respective functions of those bodies and of the L.E.A.—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: What is causing great concern—perhaps my hon. Friend would comment on it—is the fact that the instruments of government will not also have to have the approval of the Secretary of State. There is a great feeling that the liberalisation policy will fail if some local authorities are not prepared and willing to liberalise the set-up.

Mrs. Williams: If my hon. Friend will wait for a moment, I am trying to deal with the description of the Bill; I will then deal with his point.
To come back to the distinction between instruments and articles, the articles are also concerned, of course, with matters fundamental to the college, like the establishment and security of teaching and non-teaching staff, the appointment, suspension and dismissal of staff, the preparation and submission of estimates of expenditure, the responsibility for the upkeep, use, repairs and alterations of premises and equipment and, finally, the articles—I stress, the articles—are concerned with the admission, suspension and dismissal of students and the constitution of student bodies.
Thus, the relationship between the students and the institution is a matter for the articles, which are subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and not for the instruments.
I turn now to two points of controversy which have been raised. One concerns the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned—the distinction between the articles having to be approved by the Secretary of State and the instruments not having to be approved. The second concerns the position of the clerk of the governors, whether he should be the county education officer or his representative or an administrative officer of the college itself. These are the main points of controversy which have been raised with us.
On the first, it has been submitted. notably by the National Union of


Teachers' secretary and also by some individual principals, that the instruments should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in the same way as the articles. My original attitude to this was sympathetic; it seemed sensible. The Bill's intention was to liberalise the government of the colleges and it could have been argued therefore that the simplest way was by legislation.
But I ask the Committee to consider the terms upon which the Bill has been brought forward—on the basis of the Weaver Report that is, unanimously agreed by the local authorities and by the staffs of the colleges themselves, that is to say, their representatives on the Committee, and, of course, by the university representatives. There were opportunities—not only that, the matter came up—for those who were representing the staffs of the colleges to object to the present structure of the Bill and the Weaver Report's recommendations.
In other words, the matter of whether the instruments should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval could have been considered by that Committee, and at no stage did the representatives of the staff on the Committee indicate that they wished the instruments to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This is important, because it was understood that the Weaver Committee was the occasion for views of that kind to be put, and, indeed, these were representatives of the staff of the colleges. Yet at no stage was this suggested. It has been suggested only after the publication of the Report and not before.
The second point is that a Report of this kind, agreed between the authorities, will be binding upon them in so far as they all feel that the unanimous recommendations are being carried out by each group of representatives on that Committee. In other words, it is perfectly reasonable for the representatives of the staff to feel that the local authorities will abide by the recommendations of the Report, and it is equally fair for the local authorities to take the same view of the other bodies represented. But if one is severely to amend those recommendations so far as they apply to only one group, the local authorities, one is bound to say that that one group may take the

view that it is no longer bound by any of the other recommendations of the Report.
We thought that the Report was a consensus between these three bodies. It would now be difficult severely to amend those recommendations so far as they apply to one body and trust that those other items which are not at present in this legislation will then be duly, fairly and voluntarily carried out by the other bodies represented on the Committee —

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, since the Weaver Report was published and the Committee considered what it had to consider, a great deal of change in the generally accepted way of governing all sorts of bodies of higher education, in terms both of staff and students, has taken place, and that if we are to legislate purely on the basis of the Weaver Report we will legislate some years out of date?

Mrs. Williams: That is fair enough, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate, nevertheless—the Weaver Report was only published in 1966, after all—that an agreement to go forward on a voluntary basis within that Report would, in the same way that I have suggested, be pushed on one side if we were to legislate now on one part of it only.
It would be fair to suggest that we should do so if there were substantial evidence to show that the authorities were not willing to be liberal. However, the local authorities, which are partners in the education system, must be relied upon to do what they say they will do. One cannot invariably oblige them to do these things. If one did, one would destroy the autonomy of local government.
Secondly, the evidence that the authorities are not willing to do so has, in those cases which have been brought to us, been shown subsequently to have been incorrect. It is possible for an authority, in the first instance, to bring forward a scheme which is not satisfactory, but it is frequently the case—and it is certainly the case in the instances which have been brought to our attention recently by the N.U.T.—that the authority has then discussed the matter with the Department and, on reflection, has liberalised its recommendations. This is


the way in which the education system works. It operates by a process of discussion and negotiation.
I suggest that hon. Members will find it difficult to sustain with evidence the view that there have been—there are none known to us—schemes put forward which have been accepted, both as to articles and instruments, and which have been illiberal in the way they suspect that some authorities may be illiberal.

Mr. Angus Maude: Can the hon. Lady give a brief idea of what she means by the vague terms "liberal" and "illiberal"?

Mrs. Williams: I will give a precise example. It has been suggested in one or two cases that the representatives of the staffs of colleges would not be permitted to serve on the governing body or be represented on it. Since we wish to give greater power to the academic board, it is important that such representation should exist. In one or two instances it has been suspected that a local authority would refuse such representation, but in no case has that been the conclusion.
Paragraph 123 of the Weaver Report suggested that the clerk to the governors should be a senior administrative officer of the college. On the other hand, it has been submitted by some local authorities that the clerk should be the chief education officer of the local authority. However, this matter would appear in the articles and would, therefore, be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State; and, consequently, I can give the Committee the assurance that the recommendation put forward by local authorities in this respect would be able to be most carefully considered by the Department and, in particular, by the Secretary of State.
I am sorry to have detained the Committee for so long, but I thought it right that I should give the fullest possible details to hon. Members.

10.48 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: The Committee will not have grudged the Minister of State any of the time she took in lucidly explaining the purpose of the Bill. I wish to make it clear straight away that the main object of the Measure is not in any sense con-

troversial, at any rate in the Committee. As I said as long ago as March, 1965:
… surely we could bring about by legislation statutory governing bodies for regional and area colleges, and colleges of education. At the moment, these governing bodies, which are not provided for by statute, have to be, in law, sub-committees of education committees…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 761.]
I have long wanted to see a reform of this kind in principle come about. The hon. Lady rightly said that this is, in principle, an uncontroversial Measure. I am bound to say, however, that it is not an unimportant Measure. It is one, both in principle and in detail, which should receive our most careful scrutiny.
The hon. Lady was fair in what she said about the aftermath of the Robbins Report. My hon. Friends and I have never blamed the party opposite for the decision which they then took about the colleges of education. At that time, when we were in the middle of an unprecedented expansion in colleges—from 28,000 students in 1958 to 95,000 students this year—it would have been impossible to have detached colleges from local education authorities and join them to the university system in the way that Robbins had suggested. One must bear in mind the point about the urgency of teacher supply and the very real anxiety that some people have to ensure that we always remember that teacher training is about the needs of children, rather than about academic studies as such.
Having said that, we must also remember two further things. The first is that the decision was extremely disappointing to the colleges. The second —no less important—is that we must not think of the colleges of education and the polytechnics as being vocational institutions. They are institutions of higher education which are catering for a growing proportion of the system, and 95,000 students in the colleges of education make this sector a substantial proportion of our whole system of higher education. It is important, therefore, that the constitutional arrangements both for these colleges and for the polytechnics should be as we in Parliament would want them to be.
The hon. Lady was right in saying that the main anxiety and controversy has centred around the question whether


it is right that the instrument of government does not have to be approved under this Bill by the Secretary of State, as do the articles of government. In answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), I sympathise with him in saying that we should not use the words "liberal" and "illiberal" in too loose a way. I am concerned, first, about the question of staff representation on the governing body and, secondly, about outside academic representation on this body. However, above all, I am particularly concerned about this body having a reasonable measure of autonomy and responsibility and of its members having full voting rights.
I understand that the Weaver Report was, as the noble Lady Baroness Phillips said in another place, a delicate balance, and I therefore understand the hon. Lady's fear lest we try to upset any part of the balance and thereby take us back some way. It is up to us, as a Committee, to see that this balance is right, which brings me to a point which I have often made in education debates. We sometimes talk about there being three partners in the education service—the teachers, children and local authorities. I am glad that the parents have come in more as a partner. Let us remember, too, that Parliament is a partner in the education service, which means that we in the House of Commons must see that the right structure is established. It is important that we should not allow this Measure to become law, and so set the legal structure. without ensuring that the balance is as fair as we can possibly make it.
There are two reasons why I find myself distinctly anxious on this point. The first is the decision that the instrument of government does not have to be approved by the Secretary of State. As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, this concerns the very constitution of the colleges. Of course, local education authorities must have a strong, continuing interest in the government of these colleges. That is not at issue in this Committee. It would be irresponsible of us, having accepted the Government view that the Robbins recommendation cannot, for the time being, be "on", then to pass legislation which seemed to reserve that de-

cision. I therefore do not dispute the view that the local authorities must have a strong, continuing interest in the government of these colleges.
But if the majority of the members of the governing body should be political members of the local education committee—and, above all, if there were any question of the outside representation or the members of the staffs not having voting rights—then those two things together would mean that the greater independence of the colleges, as important institutions of higher education, could not be achieved. In other words, the minimum conditions about which we must be concerned are that there should be adequate staff representation, adequate outside academic representation and that everybody on the governing body should have voting rights. If that were not so, the purposes of the Bill would be nullified. Can the hon. Lady say how many local education authorities have shown their willingness to constitute the governing bodies of their colleges in accordance with the recommendations of the Weaver Report?
The other reason for my anxiety—and, if anything, this is a stronger point; in making it I hope that I am not the only member of the Committee who feels real anxiety on this score—is the different treatment which some people feel is being accorded by the Government to the polytechnics, on the one hand, and the colleges of education, on the other. There should be a continuing non-autonomous sector in higher education and, in the speech I made on this subject some time ago, I said:
At present, in many cases there are two routes; a university degree, followed by a period of professional training, or, alternatively, a course of professional study… to the requirements of the particular profession in question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 760.]
Those two routes are often a good thing and I am far from saying that, in the near future, I want to see more and more professions couch their requirements solely in terms of a university degree course. The two routes are often a good idea. However, if we are to have a continuing non-autonomous sector in higher education, two things are essential. The first is that there should be what we are now discussing; liberal


articles of government and a liberal constitution for the non-autonomous colleges. The second, and no less important, is that the polytechnics and colleges of education must be treated in the same way. In other words, I would find it difficult to accept a solution which gave the impression that the colleges of education were the Cinderellas of the education system and subject to less freedom than other non-autonomous bodies.

Mrs. Williams: I was trying to make the point that they would not be treated differently but that, because there are no polytechnics at present—for there to be any they must be designated—there is an administrative stage to be gone through in the case of the polytechnics which does not apply to the colleges. That is the sole distinction I was endeavouring to make. In the government of both we wish to see the maximum a autonomy.

Sir E. Boyle: I did not wish to be unfair or alarmist in anything I was saying. When I put this point to the hon. Lady's predecessor, who is now at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)—in the debate last summer, when we were discussing teacher training regulations for colleges of education—he caused a number of my hon. Friends and myself some anxiety. When talking about the two tines of college, he even used the phrase "There may be differences" and he did not give me as clear an answer as I should like to have had.
In a sense the hon. Lady said something this morning which exactly pinpoints my anxieties. She made the perfectly fair point that the Secretary of State is in a stronger position in regard to the polytechnics precisely because he has to designate them. The former Secretary of State said in April last year, when giving guidance to local authorities:
I am also giving them guidance on the pints on which I will wish to be satisfied before actually designating a polytechnic, including guidance on the government and academic organisation which I regard as appropriate for the polytechnics as major institutions of higher education.
If one looks at the wording of the administrative memorandum which was sent out. one reads:
The Secretary of State believes that these objectives can only be achieved by delegating the main responsibilities for conducting the

affairs of the polytechnics to suitably constituted governing bodies with a large measure of autonomy, and, under the general direction of the governing body, to the director and academic board. Under the academic board, academic and administrative matters primarily affecting particular disciplines or groups of disciplines should he delegated as far as practicable to the staff directly concerned.
I welcome those words very much. The polytechnics have a most important part to play as quasi-universities for the part-timers thus pursuing advanced courses in important professions. I should be very sorry, and I am sure the whole Committee would regard it as not right, if the Secretary of State were in a stronger position regarding academic freedom for the polytechnics simply because he has the function of designating them. Before we pass this Bill we want to be satisfied that the balance is being held fairly between the right concern and responsibilities of local authorities on the one side, and the aspirations of colleges of education on the other.
It is no good pretending that this story has always been a happy one. I ask the Committee to forgive me for telling one anecdote. It happened some years ago. When I was the Minister I had the experience of being invited to open a new college of education. I discovered, only a day or two before, that the principal of the college had not been invited to the civic lunch preceding that event. That may be an extreme case, but it is symptomatic of this situation. I ask the hon. Lady and the Committee, before we give this Bill a Second Reading and certainly before we report it to the House, to consider very carefully indeed whether Clause 1 goes far enough in holding the balance fairly between the local authorities and the colleges.
I ask the Committee to accept my deep apology because, owing to an urgent engagement elsewhere, I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. I shall leave it to my hon. Friends to develop further points. I thank the Committee for its patience in listening to me.

11.2 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I give a welcome to the Bill as a whole. It is a very desirable Measure. I go back to the point about the instrument of government. I am rather alarmed that the Minister's approval is


not required. I have had some experience on local authorities, and the analogy of my local authority may be useful.
There is a similar point in the constitution of education committees in which the Minister has not the powers I think he should have. A number of committees do not have teacher representation upon them. They include my authority. Although I was an elected member of that authority, I was teaching under another authority and during the whole 12 years of my membership I was never allowed to go on to the education committee of my authority. Presumably it was thought that I would have a special interest. There is a great danger that unless the Minister has more power than he is given by this Clause many of these governing bodies will be constituted on rather more political lines. This is irrespective of party, for the same happens whichever party is in power. It is said, "You must maintain the political majority on this committee or that."
I cannot understand the necessity for the words "if any" in Clause 1(3). The subsection says, "the academic board, if any". Is it assumed that in certain of these colleges there will be no academic board? I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that we do not want these colleges of education and other colleges to be different from the polytechnics, and so on. It is absolutely essential that there should be an academic board.
This Bill is concerned entirely with the maintained colleges and maintained special schools. Is the Minister of State satisfied that there is sufficient power to ensure—for want of a better word—the same sort of liberalisation of the voluntary colleges and voluntary special schools? We give a very warm welcome to the Bill as a whole, but I should like my hon. Friend to look at these points.
Returning to the question of the instrument of government, I am not really convinced by the explanation put forward by the Minister of State. I do not think we would upset the local authorities to a great extent if we made a change. I assume that it is feared that they might take some retaliatory action, but I do not

think they would. My experience is that if an instruction such as that were given there would be a few moans and groans but it would be accepted in the long run.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Despite the recommendations of the Robbins Report, I approve the decision not to include the colleges of education in the autonomous sector. Although if they had gone into that sector they might have been the relations of the universities, perhaps poor relations, it is much more important that they should be seen as institutions of professional training with a dominant link with professional practice, that is to say, with the maintained system of education.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), I very much want, if they are outside the autonomous sector, for them to have as strong a personality and as much independence in their own right as can be secured, subject to the essential framework of local education financial responsibility. We have to remember that although they have local roots in most places, the colleges are fulfilling a national purpose. Their students and staff come from all over the country and go out to the whole country. In that respect they are quite distinct from most of the other educational institutions in their areas and in the jurisdiction of local education authorities.
I feel some concern about the instrument of government because I am not quite satisfied about the machinery for ensuring that the recommendations of the Weaver Report are being implemented. Should I gather from the Minister of State that when the draft articles are submitted to the Department they are accompanied by the proposed instrument? Perhaps at that stage informal recommendations are made and there is an effective bargaining position. It seems that in all sorts of major and minor respects the draft instrument might be less than satisfactory.
My right hon. Friend mentioned teacher representation on the governing body. There is the whole question of numbers and comparatively minor but important points, such as the Weaver recommendation that local authority representatives need not necessarily be


elected representatives. They could be co-opted from among people who are very interested in the subject matter but who for one reason or another are not elected representatives of local authorities. Weaver recommended that they should be appointed to represent the local authorities' position and interests on the governing bodies. It would be a great pity if an instrument were submitted to the Department which excluded that possibility and said that the local authority representatives must be elected councillors or aldermen.
Inevitably one wonders what will be the Department's minimum requirements for the approval of the articles. There must be some points which are a sine qua non. I should like to know what they are. I hope they would include the right of the governors to appoint the principal and of the principal to appoint and to dismiss staff. All these are matters which go very much to the heart of giving reality to the position of principals and governing bodies. I should have thought that Weaver, having struck the balance of the very genuinely competing or conflicting interests, came to the right solution that the clerk should be the senior administrative officer but his appointment should be subject to confirmation by the L.E.A., coupled with the recommendation that the chief education officer should have the right to attend governors' meetings and give advice.
It seems important, if the object is to strengthen the colleges of education, tht the clerk should not only be an officer of the college but should be engaged whole-time in the work of the college. That should be his primary interest and loyalty. Normally he should be working at the college and therefore in the ordinary way available to members of the governing body who might wish to visit the college. I should like to k now the views of the Department about such matters as the inclusion in more precise terms of the arrangements for student representation and the rights not only in regard to disciplinary procedures which at the moment seem imprecise, but also to what extent student representation should be included in the conception of academic freedom.
The National Union of Students in Colleges of Education, whose conference

I had the privilege to attend this year, indicated in a discussion group on this subject that while it would be premature to request student representation on an academic board it nonetheless hoped that there would be student representation or participation in the subcommittees of an academic board. This is a very desirable feature which again one would not like to see specifically excluded from any articles of government which the Department might confirm.
On the financial side, I would hope that the recommendations of Weaver would be accepted as far as possible. Nothing is more aggravating for intelligent and interested people who have accepted positions on a governing body than to find that their wish to do something quite obviously sensible and in the interests of the college is frustrated by a sheer lack of flexibility in administration. In the end, the object of the Bill is to strengthen the colleges and these institutions. The only way that will be done is to get worthwhile people to serve on the governing bodies, and to make the office of principal one that is really attractive. That will get the best educationists wanting to serve in this position, however much higher their ultimate ambitions may be.
I hope, too, that the colleges of education, which are very varied not only in their size but in their character, will develop more diverse personalities in future, if their degree of autonomy is to have any meaning. I would hope that we will get various developments coming along, not in all colleges but in those that wish to pioneer new methods of training and new techniques. I would like to feel that colleges could be free, perhaps, to include students other than teachers, and that social workers would be included. Not all colleges will do that or want to do it, but I feel that some will, especially where there is a need in the area served.
Likewise, there is obviously great scope for experimental changes in the curriculum. The Nuffield project on Resources for Learning is making some very interesting suggestions about other possible ways of planning a teachers' course. I would like to feel that a really go-ahead college of education could pursue largely its own line in that respect. We will not make this kind of highly desirable progress


unless the articles of government of the institutions are drawn with such flexibility that we get the people we want willing to serve as governors or as staff.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: This Bill is primarily about the power structure in colleges of education and further education—about who controls them. At the moment most colleges, however their governors are constituted, are controlled by a sort of uneasy alliance between the principal and the Further Education Department of the Education Office. Usually after a couple of years of open warfare the principal is able to settle down to a sort of pact in which the Further Education Department tries to get as much as possible out of the treasurer of the county or city, and on that basis the principal forgoes some freedom and status that he might have had if there had been a different set-up.
The Bill foresees a radical change in that set-up and we should be aware of some of the changes which will follow if this goes through. I have no faith in governors or committees, or anything else as having any real effect on the situation at all. Such bodies are a pleasant charade that we have in local government—and I have spent much of my life serving on them—to give authority to the decisions of individuals. The important point of power on a college of education board is in the hands of the chairman of the governors, because so many decisions have to be taken between the governors' meetings and so many decisions are so complicated that the chairman's position is very important.
If the Bill becomes law and the constitution of the governors is changed, perhaps the governing body could be given a little more power, especially if members of staff of colleges go on to the governing body. I have sat on governing bodies of colleges of education when I was a secondary school teacher, and knew a little bit about it and when the principal, who knew a great deal about it, was not allowed to speak unless he was asked by the chairman—and some chairmen do not make a habit of doing that very often. There was no one else on the board of governors, which consisted of what one might call the local political gerontocracy, who knew anything about

colleges of education whatever. The meetings lasted between 10 to 15 minutes, and took place once a term, and the government of the college went ahead perfectly smoothly and efficiently, but with no relationship to the meetings of the governors. The Bill intends to change this, and it is indeed time that the situation was changed.
I want to talk about some of the consequences flowing from having a clerk within the college, rather than outside it. The advantages are that the principal and the clerk, or the principal and the administrative officer, will for the first time be able to institute a degree of real co-operation in making the college a viable place.
The difficulties will be that whereas there has been in the past a tough director of education talking to a tough city treasurer in times of squeeze—and this has resulted hithterto in some pretty lush places compared with the local university department of education—now it may be that this clerk to the governors will not be in the same position. I do not know what the salary scale will be—perhaps the Minister can tell us—but he will not be able to talk in the same way vis-à-vis the city treasurer, and I suspect that he will have a great deal more difficulty in holding the financial demands of the college of education against the city treasurer, who ultimately controls the purse strings. Under the old set-up this worked rather well.
This change has to come, but one has to watch the financial relationships. The Minister of State was perfectly right when she said that this is a very delicate matter. The brutal delicacy of it is that the local education authorities or the directors of education know that as long as they have the colleges under their direct jurisdiction and as long as the principals of those colleges are paid roughly £3,000 a year, then they have to be paid roughly £4,000 a year. This is the measure of the status to the L.E.A.s which control of colleges involves.
If this is the beginning, as I expect it is, of taking institutions of higher education in from control of local authorities —it may be if we have total local government reform, it may not be—then one can see how natural it is that the L.E.A.s should fight against this loss of control.
Because of the present state of local government, because of the present methods, political control in local government is inevitable. I accept it, although some people think that politics should be kept out of local government. I say that one has to run it in the same way as central government. I do not, however, think that the methods of political control appropriate to the sewerage committee and the baths committee are absolutely appropriate for running a college of education. For this reason it is perhaps right that the clerk to the governors comes out.
We had a debate recently, initiated by the Opposition, on the growth of bureaucracy. If the clerkship, the administration, of all the colleges in local authorities goes within the colleges, there ought to be a substantial diminution in the administrative personnel in the further education departments of local authorities. At the moment the further education departments of local authorities are quite the biggest, and there is no reason why that should be.
What I am afraid of in putting what might be called the extra administrative tier in at the colleges is that the L.E.A.s will feel it necessary to keep all their staff in the local authority and all one would be doing would be to slide one more sandwich into the bureaucratic tier, which will leave us just as short of good administrators and will simply make the wheels turn rather less smoothly.
I hope that the Department will bear this in mind, and, when the process of transferring clerkships to the colleges is going on, will perhaps send a circular to local authorities, reminding them of their responsibilities in reducing their staffs in the further education departments commensurate with the increase in staff which has taken place in the colleges. One does not want all these sums going on in two different places. If I know anything about the Parkinsonian laws of local authorities, that is what will happen.
I intervened earlier in the Minister's speech because events, in terms of the government of universities, have moved so quickly in the past two years. They have moved further in that period than they have in the country in the last 50 years. We now have students on the

Senate of Sussex University—not on the council, which is accepted now—but on the governing body of the university. I was on a university council and to me that was just as useless as being on the board of governors of schools. If students want to be on them, they should be allowed to be. At least they will find out that they have not reached that centre of power which they are trying to reach, and it gives some indication of what power in institutions is about. Very soon in most universities we will have students on all the councils, and a very large number on, if not the senate, then the faculty committees, a sort of senate at lower level.
My fear is that the colleges of education and polytechnics will remain, not one jump behind the universities, as they have been for some time in terms of student involvement in government, but, if we are not careful, five or six jumps behind. That is why I should like far more Ministerial control over the instruments of government in order to ensure not only that staff get a fair deal—the question of staff getting a fair deal is part of breaking the power of the principal in the colleges, which is very necessary, and involving the staff much more —but that students get a fair deal and that we do not have the sort of student demonstrations in polytechnics and colleges of education which we have had in the last two years in both the new and older universities.
We must think carefully about the question of control of instruments of government. Even instruments and articles of government, I would agree, are no guarantee. The intention ever since 1945 has been that secondary schools should have governors to give the schools independence, but the instruments and articles of government have been flouted left, right and centre by local authorities which want to make nothing of them.
I should like the Minister to spell out why voluntary colleges have been excluded from mention in the Bill. We all understand why they have been excluded, I think, but I should like to know whether she thinks it is such a good thing. The danger is that we may drive a wedge between the voluntary sector and the State sector in colleges, a wedge which is appearing between the direct grant and voluntary aided schools and


the county schools in the school system. This is a difference which needs to be evened out rather than sharpened. My fear is that the Bill will sharpen it.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) made an extremely important point about the staffing of further education departments. I hope that the Minister of State has taken careful note of it. I have no doubt that until local authorities and Government Departments react in the way described by the hon. Gentleman as necessary, and in the same way as any successful business organisation would react to a change in its set-up, there is bound to be a growth of the bureaucracy. But if local authorities and Government Departments can be persuaded to react in the way that they should, I have no doubt that the growth of bureaucracy can be controlled or, better still, that reductions in it can be secured.
I wish to return to the point made earlier about instruments of government. As a former member of a local education authority and as someone who on occasion was frustrated by the limits, sometimes the narrow limits, within which local education authorities had to work, may I say that I do not normally believe that the Secretary of State should be given still greater power, but the fact is that colleges of education have regional and national responsibilities as well as local responsibilities. All that is being asked for is that the Minister should have some reserve powers to ensure that something unfortunate does not happen should there be a possibility of its happening.
We have been told that the Secretary of State, on examining the articles of government, would take into account how they might be affected by the composition of governing bodies. The implication is that the Secretary of State might or could have doubts about the ability of the governing body collectively and, therefore, might insist that the articles should be very narrowly drawn. This by itself might circumscribe very considerably the freedom of action and thought which it is intended to create. Surely freedom of action for a responsible and

representative body is preferable to less freedom for a body of people who could, under the Bill, be left responsible or representative.
Clause 1 refers to institutions providing full-time further education. We have been told that the total is in excess of 400. I am a little concerned about the number of governing bodies which will result from the Bill. Might not the establishment of the governing bodies cause a little too much fragmentation? I know that Clause 1(4) allows grouping of several colleges under one governing body, but clearly it is not possible to group together colleges in rural areas. I know that in practice many further education governing bodies are already allowed to act, although they may happen to be local education sub-committees, in accord with the spirit of the Bill. I should like to know whether the Minister of State is entirely satisfied that the Bill will not lead to certain differences of organisation and control of the smaller education colleges.
Finally, I wish to make a small practical point in connection with claims for travel allowances. I see from the debate in another place that, as a result of governing bodies at present being constituted as sub-committees of education committees, the members of the governing bodies can put in claims for travel allowances to the local education authority. Baroness Phillips, speaking in another place, said that as a result of this Bill governing bodies would be brought under Section 111 of the Local Government Act, 1968. Does this mean that claims for travel allowances will be made to the local education authorities or that they will go direct to the college? If it means that the claims have to be borne by the college, a sum will have to be put annually into the college estimates.
I do not want to exaggerate this point, but I know from personal and practical experience that estimates are pared down to the minimum and that every unavoidable cost is bound to react in, however small a manner, against some desirable improvement. I should be grateful if the Minister would enlarge on the question of payment of travel allowances.

11.39 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should like to underline


some of the points made by my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite.
I was a little disappointed by the reply which my hon. Friend eventually gave to my intervention on instruments of government for these colleges. It is a rather strange dictate of government that we are going to legislate on unanimous reports of committees. The whole sphere of education, in fact, the whole of our legislation, would be very different if all we did was to accept and immediately legislate on the unanimous recommendations of committees.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) said, there has been quite a revolution in the past two years, even since the publication of the Weaver Report, on the attitude to the setting-up of governing bodies, of the participation of people and individuals, not only in education, but in all our community life. "Worker participation" is now a common phrase and the party to which the hon. Lady the Minister and myself belong has published a very interesting working document on it.
Therefore, I wish to make two points. First, we must have adequate representation of the academic staff and of teachers from the areas which the colleges are covering—that is, the areas where students from the colleges go out to teach. That is very important, for this reason. There could be a local authority —one springs to mind, but I will not mention it—where a limited degree of teacher representation was allowed from the area of the local authority, but no representation was allowed from surrounding areas where the problems affecting teachers and the methods necessary to deal with them were completely different. For example, there may be a highly industrialised urban authority with a training college, and the surrounding area is agricultural, suburbia, semi-residential where the problems are very different and the teachers have different attitudes which need to be represented. On could have, on the face of it, a reasonably liberal representation, but, in fact, for a variety of reasons, representation curtailed in areas which are tremendously important.
Secondly, there must be adequate student representation. Over the past two or three years there has been a revo-

lution in student thought and student ideas. There has been a recognition of the rights of students to be consulted. not perhaps on the content of their syllabus, but to voice opinions on its relevance and on the method of teaching and the way in which their studies should affect their future professional career.
We should be able to draw on the experience of mature students, just as women whose families have grown up have a particular experience and just as people coming in from industry have particular experience. This can be of considerable value. Speaking as one who spent his working life, until he came to the House of Commons, in education, I can say that people tend to have a rather cloistered attitude unless they are aware of the problems and attitudes to life which exist outside. This is a reason for having adequate student representation. I would go so far as to say that we should have it on the academic boards, because students' attitudes are relevant to what is going on.
I wish to refer to the strange phrase to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) referred at the end of Clause 1(3)—those two little words "if any" which appear after "academic board". We want to see these words deleted from the Bill.
I underline a point made by two of my hon. Friends about the position of the voluntary colleges. As all my hon. Friends know, I am a great supporter of the voluntary college and I wish that they had 100 per cent. grants, though not all my hon. Friends would agree with that. Nevertheless, we need some explanation of their exclusion.
In many of these things, there is no need for any difference between the local authority college and, say, that of a religious denomination, in organisation, discipline and representation of staff. I am glad that the voluntary college in my constituency has a very good academic board, but some voluntary colleges certainly need to change part of their attitude towards their students. They take their standing in loco parentis far too seriously, in a way more suitable to the reign of Queen Victoria than to that of Elizabeth II.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously consider the widespread objections to the control which the Secretary of State should have of the instruments of government, teacher and student representation and staff recommendations. There is a great deal of sympathy for the Bill, but this lovely creature could be made even more beautiful.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: I also think that there is a good case for the Secretary of State having greater powers than the Bill proposes. It is not my normal instinct to bring back to the centre more powers than are absolutely necessary, but until we have a local government reorganisation providing all-purpose local education authorities totally responsible for nearly all aspects of education in an area, the Secretary of State should ensure that where an institution serves an area wider than that of one local authority, a stronger voice in the government of a college of education is necessary than is provided by the suggested representation of neighbouring authorities, which is all we have at the moment. I ask the hon. Lady to consider this.
I disagree with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others said, for understandable reasons, about student representation. I do not share the view that, for there to be proper communication among the principal, the managers and the student body, it is necessary for the student body—an ephemeral group which changes perhaps every three years—to be an active participant in that management.
Important decisions affecting the life of the student bodies will frequently have to be taken but the fact that they are not members of that body will not mean that they have no access to the principal and others to put their views. There will also be matters of confidence affecting personalities and appointments in which it is reasonable that the students' views should be known but unnecessary for them to participate in the decision taking machinery. We should look for a different kind of dialogue between the students and the governing body than was suggested by the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) said that governors are a pleasant charade which is part and parcel of our educational scene. I think that when this view is held, because powers are not great or the meetings frequent, it is a symptom of the feeling of many of us that because one is a governor one should therefore be part and parcel of the day-to-day management of a college. That is not and should not be so. Just because the everyday powers and responsibilities are not considerable, I would urge those who share the hon. Gentleman's view not at the same time to underestimate the importance of links, even if fairly tenuous, between an institution—perhaps a college of education or of further education or a special school—and the people whom those institutions exist to serve.
For example, I hope that, with regard to special schools, parents will always be represented on the governing bodies because there is a need for their viewpoint to be heard along with that of the professionally qualified staff. As to further education, it is very important that industry and commerce in the area should be represented, as is advised, on the governing body—not because they will take over the management of that institution but because the opportunities should be seized in appointments like this to involve local public opinion in the institution's activities, since it is there to serve them.

Mr. Christopher Price: My point about the charade was that the governors appointed did not do the things which the articles and instruments of government said that they were meant to do. My hon. Friends and I probably favour the informal links which the hon. Gentleman mentioned as much as he does.

Mr. Hornby: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, well and good. Let us agree that the opportunity for governors to serve a useful purpose in this way exists, and should not be lightly set aside. If, when these measures take effect, the hon. Lady and her Department can advise the individual governing bodies on their role, this would be useful.
I have one point about the governing bodies of the colleges of education. I said that I do not want the student body represented there as such, but I do want teachers represented, and I hope that


authorities will appoint relatively young teachers, who have recently studied at the colleges, and whose experience of the transition from the colleges to their first appointments is relatively fresh in their minds. This could be helpful.
I hope that when the Bill is passed we shall be able to have discussions and comments from the Ministry on the financial powers which will or will not be delegated to the governing bodies. Some interesting points were made about this, and, with the change in the bargaining position, we should look for some detail on this and hear from the hon. Lady what proposals are in mind.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I strongly welcome the Bill, having spent a considerable part of my working life in a technical college, but certain of its Clauses must be tightened up considerably. The Minister, for whom I have a great regard, has a blind faith in the willingness of people to do things when they say that they will do them. If she came to the outside world with me, she would find that experience is not quite as pleasant as she thinks.
I was once involved in negotiations over the right of teachers to be represented on a local authority education committee. There were 96 on the committee and we were asking for two representatives. I was told that one particular county councillor, "was not going to have any teachers dictating to him on the council", ignoring the fact that the proportion would have been 96:2. In view of this kind of mentality, some of the Clauses should be tightened up.
Those of us intimately concerned with the training of teachers are very concerned by the representations which we have had from the N.U.T. and the A.T.T.R., that it would be possible to have teacher training in institutions without an academic board. This is a real and grave danger. If professional standards are needed, we should also have professional scrutiny from outside. In the same way that university education departments have links with teacher training departments, academic boards should have links with polytechnics, as suggested by the N.U.T.
I liked the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) about the selection of governors, that, in this process, one was asking, "wherein lies power?" All backbenchers present today ask the same question about Parliament, "Wherein lies power?" One seeks to grasp it, gets one's hands around it and then finds that one is grappling with jelly. The same happens in education: one thinks one has the source of power, one closes one's hands around it, and it is gone.
This is primarily because, in selecting people for governorships, one makes sure that hellions are not chosen. The essential qualities for a governors' meeting are the abilities to be quiet, placid and quick —then we all go downstairs for the cup of tea kindly provided by the domestic science department, and it is over and done with.
We need some wider representation here. At great expense, we are told, local education authorities appoint professional people like schoolmasters and school mistresses and then refuse to use them in a directly advisory capacity, and completely ignore the views of highly trained and skilled professional people. It is all very well the local authorities or the Minister feeling that these people are willing that teachers should be represented what we must be sure of is that they will be represented. This is the key to the situation. I know all too many local authorities which do not want difficulties in committees from teachers who happen to know their stuff. Unless the regulations are tightened, the Minister will be talking in 12 months to her hon. Friends about a situation of which we warned her in advance.
The difficulty with representation is that large numbers of people can serve on councils and give up a lot of valuable time, but there is a second stratum which we could use but which we do not pick because governors are selected on the basis of the representation of certain organisations. There is more horse trading in the selection of governors for various colleges than is ever seen at New-market. I want some device whereby ordinary, non-affiliated people of considerable ability and skill can be chosen.
I am thinking of the type of person who used to come to my university extension classes out of an interest in education and


a desire to take part in a discussion. They are able and competent people, but, because they have no interest in a set organisation, they never have the chance to serve in this kind of governorship—where they could make a useful contribution—primarily because, in choosing governors, we tend to polarise around political parties or set organisations.
I take this opportunity to warn the Minister—I hope that I am in order in raising this matter—of the dangers we might be facing in giving too much autonomy to the governors at the expense of the students. I have been trying—it has been a long, hard battle—to get students' rights in universities. A university should be an autonomous organisation but, when something goes wrong, it should not be the judge and jury. There should be a court of appeal outside and—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman hoped that he would not find himself out of order, but he is straying somewhat from the path of order.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If I may return quickly to the point—

The Chairman: I am afraid not.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am concerned to see that students have a right of appeal here and that it will not be lost as a result of the passage of this Measure. I welcome the Bill but hop that the Minister will tighten up some of its provisions to ensure that representation by teachers and others is made secure and not promissory.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I wish to refer to two matters concerning the Bill. The first is the question which most hon. Members have mentioned—whether or not an institute or scheme should require the approval of the Secretary of State. When the Minister spoke I found her case convincing, but since the effect of her charm and logic has worn off, I have thought again and I am not now so certain as I thought I was. It seems that this is not just a question of the possibility of abuse of the political control of local education committees. All sorts of vested interests are involved, including those which have, by custom and in the course of time,

secured a sort of prescriptive right to control various institutions. These are only too likely, even under this Measure, to prove self-perpetuating.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that it is not desirable, unless absolutely necessary, to centralise power or to remove the autonomous powers of local education authorities where they exist. However, I wonder whether it is necessary, to deal with the danger to which hon. Members have referred, to require that every scheme should be submitted automatically to the Secretary of State. It might be possible, with little difficulty, to insert a provision—perhaps by an amendment of the powers in the 1944 Act referred to in Clause 3(3)—to provide that the Secretary of State could, where there is evidence that there is local unrest or dissatisfaction, call in a scheme and require that it be revised. This would be simpler than insisting that every scheme should automatically be submitted to the Secretary of State. This is not an unprecedented idea, for the Minister of Housing and Local Government has certain powers under planning law to do much the same sort of thing. I should have thought that this would have met the doubts which hon. Members have expressed on this score.
The second point I wish to raise is of more detailed application and goes to the principles of the Bill. It is the complicated question of Clause 4(2), which I take to be the usual attempt by the draftsman to arrange the provision so tightly that it provides against every contingency. This subsection appears to be either unnecessary or dangerous. I believe it to be dangerous in principle because, if it means anything, it is an attempt—I hope that this does not sound too paradoxical —to enact retroactive legislation in advance. I cannot feel that this is right in principle or likely to be anything but dangerous in practice.
I am aware that the final words in Section 37 of the 1889 Interpretation Act act as a saver and permit a provision of this kind. Nevertheless, should we not consider, in connection with the intentions of the Bill, whether this is a reasonable provision? As I understand it, the purposes of the Bill are twofold. The first is to render legal things which are either illegal or of doubtful legality. The Weaver Report makes it clear that there


is grave doubt as to whether the setting-up of boards of governors for these institutions is legal. The Report says that two clerks and a legal adviser to the Minister advised that it was illegal to set up a body which was not a sub-committee of the governors, although the I.L.E.A. thought that it was legal and said that it had done it and would go on doing it.
There is at least doubt about whether it is legal to do these things and some impressive legal authorities are saying that at present it is illegal. Let us assume that this is so. Then, it cannot surely be possible to legitimate illegal acts by a Measure which has not yet come into force. I suspect that any attempt to justify this in the courts could only result in the courts deciding that this was ultra vires.
Let us consider the second purpose of the Bill, which is not simply to legitimate something which may be or is illegal. It is also to compel local authorities to do something which, either through their inertia or decision, they have decided not to do or are unwilling to do. But how can one compel people to do things under the provisions of a Measure which has not yet come into force? This cannot be legal. While I accept that I have a suspicious mind, and do not fully understand the finer points of the law, this seems an extremely questionable provision. I suggest that it might lead to serious trouble if the actions of local authorities were challenged in the courts and that, insofar as it is not dangerous and wrong, I submit that it is totally unnecessary and should be removed from the Bill.

12 9 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: I welcome the Bill but, like other hon. Members, wish certain reservations. I am concerned about the instrument of government not needing the approval of the Secretary of State. This subject has my concern not merely in the interests of centralisation but in the interests of local autonomy. A further education sub-committee of a local authority could be constituted as the governing body of all the colleges in one area. In that case there could be very little influence exerted by those concerned in the area in teaching. Perhaps I am choosing an extreme example, but I hope

that the Minister will deny that such a thing could possibly happen. I have raised this point because it is worrying many people engaged in teaching organisations and I wish to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to clear the matter up.
There is a growing ferment in the country for industrial democracy. All sections of industry are seeking its introduction. In this move, I suggest that we should not exclude what I might call the teaching industry. It is important that those engaged in teaching should have the opportunity of representing their points of view where they really count in matters of policy. This should be done not merely for the benefit of teachers, but for the members of the staffs concerned and in the interest of the whole organisation. When members of teaching staffs have the opportunity of discussing policy, they are better able to understand the policy which is being urged by the governing bodies. It is extremely important, if we are to get the sort of harmony and co-operation that is essential, that teachers are given adequate representation in these matters.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby)—who, I regret to see, is not in his place—on union representation. A great deal of agitation is going on among students for representation and they are demanding a say in the way their affairs are governed. It would be wrong of us, when passing a Measure of this sort, not to recognise that this agitation is likely to grow. We should take this opportunity to give students the right to be represented. If we did so we would not be giving anything away. No dangers are involved, and if hon. Members suggest that some are involved they could be adequately overcome. The Bill should contain a provision to see that the Secretary of State can urge this representation on local authorities.
Clause 2 deals with the question of what one might describe as consumer representation. I have long been convinced of the need in secondary schools and primary schools for parents to be represented. However, this need is accentuated for parents of children who attend special schools. I have had experience in my constituency of seeing the great interest that is shown by these


parents, whose children are deaf, partially deaf or who, for other reasons, attend special schools. We should see that these parents, and all parents who are interested, are encouraged to put their views forward, for the whole organisation must benefit if this is done.
It is tremendously important at this time when there is growing contact between industry and education, to encourage as much as possible local industry to take an interest in what is going on. There is, therefore, the need for consideration to be given to representation of local industry on governing bodies of various educational institutions. I emphasise that this should not be limited to the employers. Opportunity should also be made available for trade unions to be represented so that they can make a real contribution.
I wish to make it quite clear that although some of these points may be regarded as critical, I very much welcome the Bill. All I ask is that it should be broadened in some respects to meet the needs of the situation better than it will in its present form. I hope that the Bill will get a speedy passage after its improvement.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: It will be generally agreed that we have had a very useful discussion. It will also be generally agreed that it would be for the convenience of both sides of the Committee, and certainly within the spirit of our discussions, if we were to finish our Second Reading debate today. I shall not speak for any considerable length of time, in order that I can give the appropriate amount of time for the hon. Lady the Minister of State to reply to various points and so that we can finish this business this morning.
It has been a most agreeable experience to be present in a Committee where there is such a wide degree of unanimity on both sides. This is the second occasion in a week when I have found myself in this happy position. On Monday I was addressing a meeting at Oxford University, sponsored jointly by the Conservative, the Liberal and the Democratic Labour Clubs. We found ourselves in almost complete unanimity about the iniquities of certain educational

policy. Today there has been an agreeable extension of that experience.
It is important to make one thing quite clear. The House is operating this Second Reading Committee procedure and as yet we are comparatively new to it. It is important to make clear that we are not giving any kind of second-class treatment to the Bill. It is merely a procedural device which we have adopted, that where both sides of the House are agreed—and both sides have so agreed—that a Bill is not of a contentious nature it is convenient for it to be dealt with in this way.
It would be most unfortunate, however, if those affected by this very important but non-contentious Bill believed that the House was not giving it the same kind of careful scrutiny and attention as, or regarded it as less important than, other Bills merely because of the procedural device we have adopted. I hope it will be understood by all concerned that on both sides of the Committee we attach the very greatest importance to this Bill and that in that sense we represent the whole House.
I must express the purely personal view that I am not at all sure that it is not an advantage to have a discussion in which I think very nearly every hon. Member has taken part. One has only to look at the membership of the Committee to see that everyone has a specialist interest one way or the other in the subject. That has added greatly to the tone of our discussions.
Inevitably, the greater part of what has been said so far has centred on the colleges of education. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remind the Committee, as the hon. Lady did in opening, that Clause 2 is also a very important part of the Bill and that the special schools are a very important factor in the whole school set-up. The proposals in Clause 2 are not in any sense controversial, but they will have an important effect upon aspects of the school structure, which is very important to us all.
I was not entirely certain that I understood the hon. Lady when she spoke about the power contained in Clause 2 for grouping. I understood that the principal thought in her mind was that one could thereby use the expertise of


some specialist in this sphere, be it the partially deaf or mentally subnormal children, in a group of schools. I hope she will also agree that it is extremely important in schools of that nature, which frequently have special human problems of their own, that the grouping process should not be carried too far and that the special relationship and the attention that the governors can give to an individual school should not thereby be prejudiced.
Inevitably, also, the hon. Lady, in opening the debate, was good enough to paint the general background from which this Bill springs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) has apologised for his enforced absence, because of a very important engagement, from the later stages of our debate. There was agree-me it between the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend that what I loosely call the binary line had been correctly drawn. That is the view of the Opposition party, and one understands it. I am on the record, and I cannot have changed my view suddenly, that we did not draw the binary line at the right place. I have said so in the House, but I accept without any question that we could not now make major surgical changes of that kind, although I believe that in time the House will make the change and move the binary line.
We have to remember that one of the principal causes of disappointment, which was referred to by hon. Members an both sides of the House at that time, was that we appeared to be giving something akin to second-rate status to the profession of education. I do not think it is controversial that maintenance of the morale of the profession is among the most important tasks facing the Secretary of State. It is, therefore, all the more important that we should scrutinise the provisions of this Bill. It is all the more important that we should be seen to be giving a status with the appropriate measure of academic freedom, which certainly would have been given if the binary line had been drawn other than in the way it has been drawn.
That is why hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have looked with such very great care at the provisions of Clause 1. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who has been listening to our discus-

sions that certain Amendments are already in the minds of hon. Members on both sides. I do not propose to delay the proceedings at this stage with Committee points, but in due course, when we reach the Committee stage, the hon. Lady will certainly be required to justify fully the words "if any" in Clause 1(3), and particularly to defend—with greater persuasion than even she produced this morning—the exclusion of the approval of instruments of government by the Secretary of State.
I thought she was a little hard upon the representatives of Weaver whom she felt had not used the occasion to put forward that particular point of view. Maybe they did not, but nor do I think was the opposing view discussed. The representatives of the L.E.A.s did not, I think, take that opportunity to clear the point out of the way and as it were have it as part of the agreed package. I have to say "I think" because I have not had an opportunity of checking that point in the Weaver Committee Report since the hon. Lady concluded her speech. I speak subject to correction, but I do not recall that this point was cleared as part of a package deal by the other side. I think it a little hard of the hon. Lady to castigate the staff representatives—"castigate" is too strong a word, to criticise them—for not having secured their position then and so to find that the provision is not in the Bill.
Quite apart from anything else, as the hon. Lady pointed out, Weaver dealt with matters which are outside this Bill. The members of the Weaver Committee had their minds directed to many aspects and it might well have been a technical legal point which would not have occurred to the representatives in question. I speak for myself, but I think it was clear from the way in which my right hon. Friend responded to the hon. Lady, that it is likely to be the Opposition view also that the arguments have to be more persuasive than that.
I have a procedural suggestion to make to the hon. Lady which I hope she will find helpful. As she knows, there is no disposition on this side to hold up the progress of the Bill. The only objective we shall have when we meet in Committee will be to seek to improve the Bill in a constructive way. Therefore, she


has not got a long Committee stage before her. Unlike her right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport—whose hand, I suspect, she holds lovingly from time to time in appropriate support—she has a non-contentious Bill and a short Committee stage before her.
Would she not, therefore, think it wise to do two things this morning? First, will she not commit herself irrevocably to opposition to the points made to her? Will she at least keep the ball in play? I ask her not to shut the door totally to representations made to her from both sides of the Committee.
We all understand the delicate nature of some of the negotiations which take place in matters of this kind. We have only to refresh our memories about the bodies which were represented on the Weaver Committee to see the many crosscurrents of view. It may be that the hon. Lady may think it wise not to hurry the Committee stage quite so fast as normally she would wish to do, in order to dispose of the Bill quickly, but to take a little more time for consultations internally with the various interests involved who, no doubt, will wish to make representations in one way or another to her and which may embrace all the views very forcefully expressed to her from both sides of the Committee.
There are only one or two comparatively—although important—detailed points the threads of which I may perhaps draw together. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), speaking with personal and practical experience as a former chairman of an important L.E.A., raised a point about country areas in which colleges are spread. I hope the hon. Lady will feel —if not today certainly in Committee, but I hope today—that she can give the assurance for which my hon. Friend reasonably asked on behalf of areas which are very spread.
We have talked from both sides at considerable length about actual representation and about the powers of governments. I suppose that insofar as every different stage has its phrase, it was really the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), with his phrase that governors are "a pleasant charade", which will be remembered on

this occasion. I simply want to say that I do not know whether I have been extremely fortunate, but I either have served or continue to serve on the board of every different kind of school in the voluntary, private and maintained sectors. This is partially because in former years and at present I have wanted to keep my hand in, as it were. I have done so in a fairly wide range of colleges of one sort or another at further education level and I can honestly say that I have not had the same dismal experiences as the hon. Gentleman seems to have had.
It varies from one part of the world to another. In both major political parties changes are regrettably made for no other reason than political representation, and good men and women from both political parties are removed, simply because political representation at the centre has changed. It has always been my impression that governors—in this case we talk of them, as they will become, the governing bodies of colleges—can have, and frequently do have, a very real use and can be an enormous strength of the academic staff of whatever institution they are supporting. They can be particularly helpful to the principal or headmaster. What is true is that it largely depends, and will depend in the terms of this Bill too, more upon the personalities involved and the approaches that they make than upon anything that we are able to write in.
My only criticism of Weaver is that it really envisaged an absolutely halcyon day when it would not be necessary to have the Bill in front of us at all. Let me give an illustration from the very interesting and delightfully written chapter on the quality and spirit of college government. It gives one or two illustrations on page 25 to help to indicate the attitudes that it had in mind in getting a good spirit in college government. It says:
When a college seeks approval to a course of action which is at first sight unusual the first response should be 'Why not?' rather than 'Why?'.
If that was the sort of general response, if that was the way in which we all operated, and in which all colleges of education and all L.E.A.s operated, many of the fears expressed from both sides of the Committee would be groundless.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are having to consider legislation for the minority, and it is important to say that it will be the minority of cases, where such an attitude of mind does not apply, or where, if it does apply, it applies very properly indeed. This is an important point. It is also important to stress again that we are talking about a minority. The hon. Lady does not meet the Committee when she says that her experience so far, and we accept this, is that the vast majority of L.E.A.s concerned are responding in what I might loosely call the spirit of Weaver. I have no doubt that they are if that is what she tells us.
But we are having to legislate for the occasional laggard or the future laggard, and that is where she has to meet the Committee and where, with respect, she has failed so far. There have been representations made to Members on both sides that it would not be at all proper for us to agree to provisions which permit any college to be under a board of governors other than its own exclusive board. We must explore this more fully in Committee, but my provisional view, remembering the very proper warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, would be that to prohibit such a grouping would surely be unwise.
I cannot believe that it will be operated in any case other than where it makes very good administrative sense. There has been considerable discussion on both sides about student representation as it will emerge on these bodies. I am totally committed in this matter because I am an honorary vice-president of the National Union of Students, and in a sense I am a mandated Member. I would clearly be executed publicly, after some appropriate demonstration, if I were to say anything else.
There was great justice in the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and by hon. Members opposite, that since Weaver there has been a very marked change in outlook on these matters, certainly at the universities. Here we are dealing with a body which is roughly analogous and to which we are seeking to give a certain measure of academic freedom. It is inevitable that there would not be unanimity on these matters. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for

Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) clearly has very well-argued reservations, and the whole Committee knows what great experience he has. He must be listened to very closely.
It may be an additional reason for hoping that the hon. Lady will change her mind. We shall also need to look much more closely than I confess I have at the two fascinating suggestions made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). He said that they might be regarded as Committee points, and they are points which we shall need to look at much more fully. The possibility of what he loosely called a "calling-in procedure" analogous to planning consent, and his very telling inquiries into the effect of Clause 4(2), must be explored.
The hon. Lady was not present on the Standing Committee which dealt with the previous Bill but I fought an entirely lone battle on the subject of retrospection on that occasion. I was even abandoned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and it was a hideous experience, from which I have yet really to recover. On this particular occasion I know that we shall have to look at this much more closely in Committee. The general view from this side has been clearly expressed and I simply draw the threads together. We are firmly in favour of the principles behind this Bill. We have certain reservations of a Committee nature, of which we have given the hon. Lady advance notice. We ask that she will not totally shut the door on representations made to her. With the points that I have made, I hope that we shall agree to go forward in the spirit of the Bill.

12.39 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was speaking of the horrid experience he had earlier of being abandoned by all his hon. Friends, even by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), but with the instruments of government, I seem to be clinging to nothing but a rather insubstantial piece of paper. I shall try to eplain in more detail to the Committee why I seem to take this


obstinate attitude. First, I will deal with some of the points raised in the debate and I am sure that I will carry the Committee with me in saying that many points of controversy are to be settled in Committee, and all hon. Members have indicated their support for the general principle of the Bill.
I want to take my theme for a moment from the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), because he very clearly indicated the way in which, at least in many colleges of education, there has been a very considerable revolution in the approach, not only to the students but to the curriculum and methods of study. This is something, which all Members of the Committee who know colleges of education will agree, has characterised the most lively and best colleges of education where the work is quite remarkable and where, to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, mature students and students from other professions are bringing a completely new approach and a new maturity and understanding to the work of the colleges.
At the other end of the scale there are institutions among the colleges and in further education which are far removed from the very best. It is partly to narrow this gap, and partly in order to give the best their heads, that we want to make sure that this Bill reaches the Statute Book. Having said that and reflected upon the very great importance of this, the first point that I take up concerns student representation.
Because of the point that I have made, that there is a very wide range in the institutions about which we are talking, both in the colleges and even more markedly in the colleges of further education, we in the Department take the view that it is for the institutions to make what suggestions they wish with regard to student representation. We are certainly not hostile to the idea of student representation, but we think that the only way to deal with this is to look at the proposals for each institution as they are put forward.
We have therefore advised student bodies that the appropriate place for them to make representations in the first in-

stance is to the institutions on which they wish to be represented. Clearly one does not have quite the same sort of student position with a polytechnic or a college of education as one may have with a further education college dealing almost entirely with the further education of 16 to 18 year olds on craft and technician courses. One would not want to lay down exactly the same sort of thing and we think that the Committee would be of the view that one wants flexibility on this matter. The Department is certainly not set against the idea of student representation on any of these institutions.

Mr. McNamara: The point is that we are not suggesting that the Department has set its face against this. It is the authorities and in many cases the governing bodies of colleges which have set their faces against this. It is the inversion of the position and the right of appeal. Where do they make the representation and how do they get anywhere?

Mrs. Williams: They can go first to the local institutions and then to ourselves. The point that I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to lay down representation on a kind of mathematical basis, because one is dealing with totally different situations, possibly partly because this Bill has taken in the colleges of further education, whereas originally the Weaver Report and the Bill which arose from it was concerned, above all, with the colleges of education. I do not think that most Members of the Committee would wish it to be otherwise.
With regard to the point about the voluntary colleges, raised by several hon. Members, this is strictly speaking out of order because it does not come up on the Bill, but I can briefly answer by saying: Yes, the Secretary of State has full powers with regard to the establishment of academic boards and representation on those colleges, for the simple reason that they are not governed by the standing orders or by the rules of education committees of L.E.As. They are a special case and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that this Bill brings them closer together, not further apart so that it achieves just what he wished to achieve.
As to the special schools and the question raised about the grouping of them, I do not want to suggest that there would be groupings in all cases. We simply want to make it possible that there should be some grouping on the advice of the local education authorities, because as Members will know, many special schools are boarding schools, and they are not concerned only with the immediate area of one L.E.A. One wants to be sure that they get governors who will take a direct and active interest in education, and not regard this as yet another public job.
Grouping can lead to a higher quality on the governing board than if one did not allow it. As to the point made by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), there is no question of the grouping of colleges of education. This is not covered by Clause 1, as Members will see, where, by paragraph (a), colleges of education are left out of grouping procedures, whereas in paragraph (b) colleges of further education are brought in. Hon. Members will know why. It is because colleges of further education can be complementary to one another. There can be an art college, a technical college, and so forth, not necessarily on the polytechnic level, where it may be sensible to group the colleges so that they have a single governing body. This is not the case with colleges of education.
I turn now to the legal point made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). He also has me at a disadvantage because I am even less of a lawyer than he is. Indeed, I believe that he has a great deal of legal knowledge. This is substantially a Committee point, but my understanding is that this is not retrospective but simply a question of permitting those institutions whose articles have been approved to go ahead without waiting upon the last institution, which may have involved a great deal of negotiation over the articles because they were unsatisfactory.
In practice, what Clause 4(2) permits is that an institution, when established and when its articles have been approved, can go ahead on the basis of the articles —this is especially important in the case of polytechnics—without having to wait on the last and, as it were, least viable institution in that category. There is no

question of the articles of government being approved in advance of the establishment of the institution. This was something which the A.M.C. believed to be possible under the Bill as drafted. There is no question about this: the articles must wait on the establishment of the institution.

Mr. Maude: I am not sure that that quite meets my point. The point is that the Government are purporting to take action compulsorily or are legitimating something which is illegal before the Act which justifies the powers has come into force. I cannot see why it should be necessary to have these things done before the part of the Act in question comes into force. Why not simply bring the Act into force earlier?

Mrs. Williams: It is a question not of the substantive Act not being passed but of the date on which this must apply to a category of institutions. The difficulty is that if a date is set, as it can only be set, when all the negotiations are completed for all institutions in that category, one would be holding up all the earlier institutions— [Interruption.] We may get a little bogged down on this point. Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman on it. The general point is that this is not retrospective legislation, but I will try to make that clear in a letter to the hon. Member.
There have been a great many views expressed about the need to make instruments subject to approval by the Secretary of State. May I first clear up a misconception? The academic board is a matter for the articles, not for the instruments. There is no question but that an academic board can be established by permission of the Secretary of State. The force of the words "if any", which we can take up in Committee if we wish to do so, is that we are also dealing with colleges of further education. We are dealing with colleges Which are very different. We are also dealing with some colleges which have very few full-time courses and, in some cases, almost no full-time staff.
The only purpose of the words "if any" is to cover those cases—and I repeat that this is a matter for the articles and therefore a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State—where the setting up of an academic board would be


nothing but a formality because, in effect, it could not be fully carried out or made useful. I give the assurance that the words "if any" do not apply to colleges of education or to major colleges of further education which do full-time and advanced work. That is the sole point of the words. I would hate my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to read more into them than they carry.
However, that does not deal with the major point about the instruments. The views expressed on both sides of the Committee must be looked at again during the Committee stage. It would be improper for me to say anything else.
Hon. Members have said that there are local education authorities which have behaved illiberally and which have not given staff and teachers anything like the representation which they deserve or that, when they have, they have failed to listen to their points of view. In spite of the picture of innocence which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) paints of me, I am aware that there are such authorities.
Perhaps not intentionally, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) put his finger on the point. He said that the instruments and articles of schools have been flouted left, right and centre. He went on to say that legislation was no guarantee that there would be a liberal approach to the interpretation of it. Indeed, he is quite right, because we already have the evidence from the schools of the very different ways in which local education authorities have dealt with the governors and staff of such schools. That is the whole point of my stressing the need to carry with us the good will of most local education authorities—and I say "most" because there may be some which refuse to be carried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) was altogether a little too optimistic in his view about the reaction of the local education authorities. The local education associations—and I am authorised to say this—have made it clear that their members would feel that a decision to require authorities to obtain approval for instruments of government would impugn the competence of local education autho-

rities and—this is the important point—would reopen the whole question of their acceptance of the Weaver Report as a whole.
That is a serious matter for us because the Weaver Report contains very much more than merely the establishment of more liberal governments of colleges of education and further education colleges. That, without doubt, is very central to the matter, but it is by no means all that the Weaver Report was concerned with. Anyone who reads it will see that it was concerned with the powers of principals, with the powers given to academic boards, with the rights of students, with student discipline, and with a whole range of other matters which make up the character of a college.
Since I am prepared to take absolutely seriously the views of hon. Members about instruments, I must ask them to take seriously the possibility of the non-co-operation of the local education authorities in a sector for which they and not we are responsible. The Committee might wish it otherwise. It might wish that the colleges were not the responsibility of the local education authorities. But they are their responsibility. That is the body under which they fall. I ask the Committee to consider seriously the possibility of losing the co-operation of, I repeat, the liberal majority of the local education authorities. I recognise there are some who are not so liberal.
What about the minority which is not so liberal? I was asked to give the facts, and I am pleased to do so. Up to now, we have been able to consider the articles and instruments of no fewer than 64 colleges from 39 local education authorities under the terms of the circular which asked the authorities to submit by June more liberal instruments and articles. Those 64 colleges and 39 authorities—they were not picked out; they are simply ones which we have so far been able to consider—have in every case agreed to the representation of two or more members of the staff of the college on the governing body. In every case they have allowed for university representation. In every case they have made some provision for serving teachers. In every case they have made some provision for other people with special contributions to make to be included. It therefore follows that in every


case they have given representation to the principal as well as to members of the staff.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Are Sheffield and Leeds included on my hon. Friend's list?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, after due reconsideration, Leeds is included on my list. This is the point of my earlier remark—that the first submissions may be different from the submissions made after negotiations. This was a point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle).

Mr. Mitchell: With voting rights?

Mrs. Williams: As I understand it, yes. I will have to let my hon. Friend know about Sheffield. We understand that Sheffield proposes that the principal and two members of the academic staff should be on the governing body with voting rights.

Mr. McNamara: What about student representation?

Mrs. Williams: That point was covered by my earlier remark. Some do, some do not.

Mr. McNamara: And of those submitted?

Mrs. Williams: Of those submitted covering the whole field of colleges of education and further education colleges, some do, some do not. I should have to have notice of that question, but our view is that we should look at each case in terms of what has been submitted. There is some evidence on first submissions, but there is no evidence

at the end of the day when the instruments and articles in the second case are approved and in the first case are returned to the authority along with the articles approved.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: With regard to the articles and, to some extent, the instruments, does the Ministry have a model in draft? If so, it would be interesting to see it, although there may be difficulties about that. If the hon. Lady cannot show it to us, may we have details of it in Committee so that we know on what points the Department require a judgment and what is to be provided for by the authorities?

Mrs. Williams: The model scheme is, in effect, what is in the recommendations of the Weaver Report. In all the cases that I have mentioned, they have kept fairly close to that model.
The facts do not bear out the contention of hon. Members that the need to carry the co-operation of the local authorities is crucial. We believe we shall do that. Since the Report was unanimously signed, we feel that the local authorities will wish to bring pressure to bear on recalcitrants to make it clear that they intend to carry out a Report to which they have subscribed. I will take my stand on the view that they will do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Education Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at five minutes to One o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Janner, Sir B. (Chairman)
McNamara, Mr.


Armstrong, Mr.
Maude, Mr.


Atkins, Mr. Humphrey
Mitchell, Mr. R. C.


Bell, Mr. Ronald
Moonman, Mr.


Boyle, Sir E.
Morrison. Mr. Charles


Carter-Jones, Mr.
Newens, Mr.


Dalyell. Mr.
Price, Mr. Christopher


Hill, Mr. J. E. B.
van Straubenzee, Mr.


Hornby, Mr.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley


Lyon, Mr. Alexander W.